Kerala HC Issues Notice to Digi Yatra Foundation in PIL Seeking Strict Compliance with DPDP Act 2023 for Airport Passenger Data: High Court of Kerala
07 Mar 2026
Appointment to Higher Post on Compassionate Grounds Not a Matter of Right: J&K&L High Court
07 Mar 2026
Nearly Decade-Long Delay in Patnitop Illegal Construction PIL Appalls J&K&L High Court; Directs PDA CEO to Join Proceedings
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Employees Under CCS Pension Rules Excluded from PG Act Section 2(e) Gratuity: Delhi HC Upholds Forfeiture on Resignation
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
CJI Kant: Action Needed for More Women Judges
10 Mar 2026
RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Banshi Lal S/o Sh. Poonamchand – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
ORDER :
1. This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the applicant in relation to F.I.R. No. 117/2023 of Police Station Parsad, District Udaipur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner vehemently urged that disputed documents were neither created by the petitioner nor used by him for purpose of cheating. The existence of alleged documents has neither benefited the petitioner nor caused any loss to anyone. The alleged act against the petitioner does not satisfy the ingredients of offence under Section 463 of the IPC. The investigation against the petitioner has been ongoing for more than a year. In such circumstances, there is no need for his custodial interrogation. The complainant filed present first information report solely on the verbal instructions of the District Collector. It is further argued that petitioner is innocent person and present FIR filed against the petitioner is false and baseless. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour.
The act of forging documents by a public servant is a serious offense under the IPC, and the intent to deceive is sufficient to establish criminal liability, regardless of whether any direct benefit ....
The court upheld the grant of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that seriousness of allegations alone does not justify cancellation without evidence of threats or flight risk.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there is insufficient evidence to justify the arrest of the accused.
The seriousness of the offense and the need for thorough investigation can be grounds for denying anticipatory bail in cases involving fraudulent activities.
Bail applications in subordinate courts should be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of previous permission from the Commissioner to prosecute under the GST Act and the discretion of the court in granting anticipator....
Anticipatory bail may be denied when there is substantial evidence of criminality and no indication of false implication.
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.