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

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 264

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
Virendra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
CRLMB / 2471 / 2024



Advocates:
Mr. Ashish Gehlot, Mr. Sameer Pareek, PP

The court granted anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the petitioner had joined the investigation and no recovery was pending, thus no purpose would be served by incarceration.

Headnote:(A) Essential Commodities Act - Sections 3 and 7 - Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order - Sections 4 and 5 - Indian Penal Code - Section 420 - Anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No.15/2024 - Court noted that the petitioner had joined the investigation and no recovery was due from him - No case made out against the petitioner for the alleged offences - Petitioner’s release on anticipatory bail was deemed appropriate. (Paras 1-6)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Conditions for grant - The petitioner must be available for interrogation, must not influence witnesses, and must not leave the country without permission. (Para 6)

Order

1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.15/2024 registered at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur City West, for the offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and Section 4/5 of the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order and Section 420 IPC.

2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has falsely been implicated in the present case. No case for the alleged offences under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Section 4/5 of the Motor Spirit and High-Speed Diesal (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order and Section 420 IPC is made out against the petitioner. The petitioner in compliance of this Court’s order dated 01.03.2024 has already joined the investigation and submitted all the requisite documents before the investigating agency.

3. Learned counsel submitted that since the petitioner has already joined the investigation and no recovery is due to be made from him and therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars. It was prayed that therefore, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and no recovery is due to be made from him.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the Bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner-Virendra S/o Shri Kanaram in connection with FIR No.15/2024 registered at Police Station Luni, Jodhpur City West, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each 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 petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner 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 petitioner 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