Back
DINESH MEHTA
Balbhadra Meghwat S/o Late Shri Champat Lal Meghwat – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP – Respondent
ORDER :
1. The present application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been filed by the applicant apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 344/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara, for the offences under Sections 420, 408, 409 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant narrated the requisite facts by stating that an FIR came to be registered by the trustees of the Trust – ‘Fakir Karzan Hasna Trust, Saifi Mohalla, Banswara’ that Key Watchmen of the trust, namely Hakimuddin and Burhan Bahrinwala have misappropriated the gold, which was handed over by the members as security, to whom interest free loan was advanced. It was informed that the said Key Watchmen in turn handed over or sold the gold jewellery (belonging to various members of the trust) to one Nikhil Damadiya, who was Goldsmith by profession.
3. During the course of investigation, it has come on record that those principal accused had either sold the gold or taken loan from Nikhil Damadiya. A diary has been recovered from Nikhil Damadiya
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when there is no direct evidence of wrongdoing, and arrest should not be a tool for recovery.
Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail – Order granting anticipatory bail can be set aside on merits or even in the case of breach of conditions.
Pre-arrest bail under Section 482 of BNSS is not granted as a matter of course; the court requires substantial reasons for such an exercise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the lack of evidence for invoking certain offences, and the principles governing the grant of....
The court emphasized the importance of custodial interrogation in cases involving allegations of cheating and the need to uncover conspiracy and money trail.
The court found that custodial interrogation of the accused was unnecessary, leading to the granting of pre-arrest bail under specific conditions.
The court affirms that pre-arrest bail is not granted as a matter of course, especially when the allegations are serious and investigations are ongoing.
The court established criteria for granting bail based on the involvement of accused and nature of evidence in cases of cheating.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
