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) 2174

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Rameshwar Vyas, J.
Teja Ram & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9771, 10666 of 2021
Decided On : 10-12-2021

Advocates appeared:
Chakravarti Singh Rathore, Advocate, Mahipal Bishnoi, Advocate

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be granted when the investigation is complete and the allegations are primarily civil in nature, provided certain conditions are met.

Headnote:

BAIL - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - The court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to the petitioners, considering the completion of the investigation and the civil nature of the dispute, while imposing conditions to ensure their availability for interrogation and preventing any interference with the investigation.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed applications for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 128/2020 for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C. The dispute involved a civil litigation regarding an alleged forged patta, with a stay granted in favor of one party.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigation was complete and the matter was primarily of a civil nature, leading to the conclusion that it was appropriate to grant anticipatory bail.

Issues: Whether the petitioners should be granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that anticipatory bail can be granted when the investigation is complete and the allegations are of a civil nature, thus not warranting immediate arrest.

Result: The court allowed the anticipatory bail applications, subject to the petitioners providing a personal bond and sureties, and imposed specific conditions to ensure compliance with the investigation.

JUDGMENT

Rameshwar Vyas, J. - Both the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same F.I.R.

2. These applications for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 128/2020, Police Station Siwana, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of I.P.C.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation in the matter has been completed. One civil litigation regarding alleged forged patta is pending between the parties, in which there is stay granted in favour of Peeru Khan. The possession of the land is also with Peeru Khan. He further submits that the dispute is originally of civil nature. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners prays to release the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, both the bail applications under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Teja Ram S/o Aidana Ram and (2) Jamna Devi W/o Late Shri Suresh Kumar in connection with F.I.R. No. 128/2020, Police Station Siwana, District Barmer, they shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-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 him 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