The court allowed a Section 438 Cr.P.C. bail application. The petitioner, an attesting witness and relative of the POA executor, was granted anticipatory bail pending investigation.
Granted anticipatory bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17313/2019
Mahesh Chand Sharma Son Of Shri Govind Narayan Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Krishan Nagar-I, Lalkothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravi Kant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP Mr. Sushil Pujari, for the complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Order
14/12/2019
This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.13/2019 registered at P.S. Banipark Distt. Jaipur (West) for the offences mentioned therein against the applicant, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available on record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is not a beneficiary in this matter. He is simply attesting witness of the document in question. Co-accused Amita Sharma and Vinod
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-17313/2019]
Sharma have been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.6.2019. Custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and argued that applicant is a close relative to the executor of Power of Attorney and he had all knowledge about the fake document. Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for applicant, note of the allegations levelled against the applicant as also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Therefore, this bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Govind Narayan Sharma in the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, 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 the satisfaction of the SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:
i) That the petitioner/s shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;
ii) That the petitioner/s 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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-17313/2019]
iii) That the petitioner/s shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;
iv) That the petitioner/s shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
Dheeraj /46
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is alleged to be an attesting witness and close relative of the executor of Power of Attorney.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Chand Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
Goverdhan Bardhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
