Allowed

Om Prakash v. State

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2017CRLMB/3338/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan dealt with two anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC filed by two accused persons facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court granted bail, directing the furnishing of a personal bond and specific conditions upon potential future arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in terms of personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each with conditions; enlargement directed in event of arrest.

Om Prakash Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail No. 3337 / 2017

¶3

Arun Kumar Maloo S/o Dr. H.B. Maloo, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 138, Tehcnocrat Society, Bedla Road, Badgaon, Udaipur-313011.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through the Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent Connected With

¶8

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail No. 3338 / 2017

¶9

Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Nathu Lal Ji Yadav, Aged About 59 Years, R/o 62, Krishnapura, Street No.7, Near Saint Paul School, Opposite Radha Krishna Temple, Udaipur.

¶10

----Petitioner Versus

¶11

The State of Rajasthan Through the Public Prosecutor.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Bhansali, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Vineet Dave and Mr. Navneet Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awathi, Public Prosecutor

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶15

Judgment / Order

¶16

15/09/2017

¶17

These criminal misc. second bail applications under Section 438 CrPC have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.161/2010 dated 11.06.2010 of Police Station, CPS ACB Jaipur, District ACB Bikaner for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the FIR

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-3337/2017]

¶21

was lodged in the year 2010 and the petitioners have joined every stage of investigation and they have been thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Officer and, therefore, now there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioners. It is, therefore, prayed that the petitioners may be granted benefit of anticipatory

¶22

bail.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and argued that as a matter of fact the investigation into the allegations levelled in the above mentioned FIR has already been concluded and during the course of investigation, it is found that the prima facie case is made out against the accused petitioners. It is further submitted that the ACB has already sent the request to the Principal Secretary, Mines and Geology Department, Jaipur for granting prosecution sanction against the petitioners, however, the same is still pending.

¶24

Written submissions have been filed on behalf of respondentState, in which it is averred that “so far as the custodial interrogation is concerned, it is respectfully submitted that investigation has already been completed and prima facie case is made out against the accused petitioners and other co-accused persons.”

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶26

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after taking into consideration the fact that the investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR, lodged

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

CRLMB-3337/2017]

¶29

against the petitioners, have already been completed and there is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶30

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners – Arun Kumar Maloo S/o Dr. H.B. Maloo and Om Prakash Yadav S/o Shri Nathu Lal Ji Yadav in FIR No.161/2010 dated 11.06.2010 of Police Station, CPS ACB Jaipur, District ACB Bikaner they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureities of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶31

(i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶32

(ii) They 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 to any Police Officer;

¶33

(iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶34

(VIJAY BISHNOI)J.

¶35

Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.61-62

Om Prakash v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash v. State

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

Cheema Ram Vs State

Sumarmal Kataria and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Kamlesh Kumar Vs Ajayraj and Ors.

Leelu Ram @ Balram Vs State of Rajasthan

State and Ors. Vs Omprakash Tak

Lalit Kumar Vs State and Ors.