Allowed

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2017CRLMB/10461/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan entertained a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner accused of manufacturing and selling adulterated ghee. The court granted anticipatory bail upon furnishing a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner to be released on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each upon arrest.

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 10461 / 2017

¶3

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya S/o Sh. Rajendra Pandya B/c Jain Mahajan, R/o Kekri, District Ajmer.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, P.P. for State

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

18/08/2017

¶13

Petitioner has filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

F.I.R. No. 262/2017 was registered at Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 420, 272 and 273 of I.P.C.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Ghee was recovered from Ashok Kumar whose bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the Hon’ble High Court.

¶16

It is also contended that petitioner has been made an accused on the information given by Ashok Kumar.

¶17

It is also contended that offence under Section 420 I.P.C. is not made out against the petitioner and offence under Sections 272 and 273 of I.P.C. are bailable.

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLMB-10461/2017]

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that there is allegation that petitioner is involved in selling the adulterated Ghee.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Considering the fact that Ghee has not been recovered from the petitioner and he has been made an accused on the statement of the co-accused. Without commenting upon merits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail application.

¶23

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer in F.I.R. No. 262/2017 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :-

¶24

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

(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

¶26

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶28

Amit/18

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veenu @ Vinay Pandya v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Official Liquidator Vs Birbax Singh

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Karan Singh Vs Banwari Lal

Sushil Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Smt Sunita Vs Vasudev Khinani

Pankaj Chanwala and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.