This judgment grants absolute anticipatory bail to the petitioner Vinay Arora under Sections 438 Cr.P.C. The court noted that the investigation is complete, bail bonds are furnished, and the CBI raised no objection to making the interim order absolute.
The order dated 08.10.2012 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail is made absolute.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Misc. No.M-31291 of 2012
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No.M-31291 of 2012 Date of Decision: 12th December, 2012
Vinay Arora
...Petitioner
versus
Central Bureau of Investigation
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for the respondent-CBI.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.
Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner-Vinay Arora who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12,13(1) (d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the charge-sheet has already been submitted by the investigating agency after completing the investigation. He further contends that the main accused has already been granted bail by the learned trial court. He also contends that the petitioner is not required for interrogation and in that eventuality, his incarceration would be of no worth for the prosecution. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2011(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 126. He further contends that in compliance of the
..2..
Criminal Misc. No.M-31291 of 2012
order dated 08.10.2012, the petitioner did appear before the court below and furnished the bail bonds on 10.10.2012 and 12.11.2012.
Learned counsel for the CBI has fairly conceded that the petitioner did appear before the court below and furnished the bail bonds. He further brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of pendency of the application for grant of anticipatory bail, the respondent-CBI had filed the reply in which it was specifically averred that they did not oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner. He further brought to the notice of this Court that while arguing on the application, the Public Prosecutor representing the CBI had also submitted that the argument of the CBI be considered as per their reply. He further submits that he has no objection if the interim order dated 08.10.2012 passed by this Court is made absolute.
Heard.
The charge-sheet has already been submitted by the Investigating Agency after the investigation. In compliance of the order dated 08.10.2012, the petitioner has furnished the bail bonds before the learned trial court. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Learned public prosecutor has not opposed the acceptance of the present petition.
Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 08.10.2012 whereby the ad-interim anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner is made absolute. The bail bonds furnished by the
..3..
Criminal Misc. No.M-31291 of 2012
petitioner before the learned court below shall enure during the pendency of the trial.
The petitioner shall continue to appear before the learned trial court during the course of trial and abide by the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
December 12, 2012 seema
(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grant of absolute anticipatory bail is permissible in view of the completion of investigation and non-objection by the investigating agency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and OthersReferred¶15
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, 2011(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 126
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Vinay Arora
Central Bureau of Investigation
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
