SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Chanda Devi Saini & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14842/2021
Decided on : 28-09-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain with Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Advocate, for the Petitioner; Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP, for the Respondent

Grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature of the allegation, material in the case diary, and absence of criminal antecedents.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 - The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. based on the nature of the allegation, material in the case diary, and absence of criminal antecedents.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with an FIR under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. They argued that the recovered excise article was found in the house under tenancy of a co-accused, and the tenancy termination document was forged.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, considering the nature of the allegation, material in the case diary, and absence of criminal antecedents, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Issues: Anticipatory bail application in connection with an FIR under Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

Ratio Decidendi: Grant of anticipatory bail based on the nature of the allegation, material in the case diary, and absence of criminal antecedents.

Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the petitioners were directed to be released on anticipatory bail under specified conditions.

JUDGMENT

1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.504/2021 registered at Police Station N.E.B. District Alwar for the offence(s) under Section(s) 19/54 of Rajashtan Excise Act, 1950.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the excise article was recovered from the house under tenancy of co-accused Vinay Kumar and the agreement dated 15.07.2021 submitted by the co-accused reflecting the termination of tenancy is a forged document. He submitted that while petitioner No.1 is a 61 years' old lady, petitioner No.2 happens to be a professor in an engineering college at Bhilwara. He submitted that on receiving telephonic information from the police, he himself went to the house which was searched in his presence after breaking the lock. He submitted that they have no criminal antecedents and prayed for release of the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the nature of allegation against them, material contained in the case diary especially the information furnished by co-accused Vinay Kumar Yadav under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 wherein he has disclosed the place from where he purchased the recovered article, his interrogation note and absence of criminal antecedents; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

4. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners in connection with afore- mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station the petitioners 1.Chanda Devi Saini W/o Late Shri Bishanlal Saini & 2.Hemant Kumar Saini S/o Late Shri Bishanlal Saini shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

    (i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top