Sanjay v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur granted conditional anticipatory bail to two petitioners in the Bhilwara arsenal fraud cases. Bail was granted subject to depositing a sum as demand draft and furnishing personal bonds and sureties.
What did the court decide?
Granted conditional anticipatory bail subject to deposit of demand draft of Rs. 2,50,000/- and furnishing personal bond with two sureties.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 6581 / 2017
Anupam Son of Anil Khemka, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Nearby Pratap Cinema, Bhopalganj, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 5581 / 2017 Sanjay S/o Sh. Gyan Mal Lodha, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of Pur, Tehsil and District Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S.Udawat and Mr. Pankaj Gupta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, PP. For complainant : Mr. Sanjay Nahar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
19/09/2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
These anticipatory bail applications have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.200/2017, registered at Police Station Bhilwara City Kotwali,
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether conditional anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B IPC
Whether a condition of depositing a demand draft can be imposed as a sine qua non for granting bail
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Anupam
- petitioner
Sanjay
- respondent
State of Rajasthan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLMB/5581/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court