Allowed

Azeet Singh Oberoy v. State

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2019CRLMB/463/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who faced arrest for transporting illicit liquor in a truck he had previously sold but remained registered in his name. The court imposed standard conditions including bond, appearance for interrogation, and no inducement or leaving the country without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Azeet Singh Oberoy Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 463/2019

¶3

Azeet Singh Oberoy S/o Shri Jogindra Singh, Aged About 56 Years, By Caste Oberoy, Resident Of A/35, Indra Park Extension, East, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anand Purohit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kapil Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP with Mr.Ravindra Khichi, APP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

26/07/2019

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶13

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.5/2008 of Police Station Bhilwara Excise, Distt. Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the prosecution story, a truck bearing registration No.DL1-GA-5367 was seized by the police on 27.1.2008 while some illicit liquor was being transported in it. In the said truck, co-

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-463/2019]

¶16

accused Kashmir Singh and Shobha Ram were apprehended and case under the Rajasthan Excise Act was registered against them. During the course of investigation, the police found that the said truck is registered in the name of the petitioner and, therefore, the police are trying to arrest him.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the directions given by this Court on 7.3.2019, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and submitted all the documents in support of his claim that he had already sold the truck in question to co-accused Kashmir Singh way back on 15.11.2006. It is further submitted that though Kashmir Singh had assured the petitioner that he would get the truck registered in his name, but he did not do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of selling the said truck to the co-accused, the petitioner had no knowledge that the co-accused Kashmir Singh would use the same in transportation of illicit liquor. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the documents submitted by the petitioner before the police during the course of interrogation i.e. the delivery receipt executed by co-accused Kashmir Singh, in which, it is mentioned that he had purchased the truck in question from

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-463/2019]

¶22

the petitioner on 15.11.2006 and also took possession of it on

¶23

same day, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner - Azeet Singh Oberoy S/o Shri Jogindra Singh in FIR No.5/2008 of Police Station Bhilwara Excise, Distt. Bhilwara, he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

¶25

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

¶26

(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 from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

¶27

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

¶28

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶29

56-msrathore/-

Azeet Singh Oberoy v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Azeet Singh Oberoy 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

Das Ravi Vs State

Ravindra @ Kalu Singh Vs State

Neka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Kumar Vs State

Ramu Ram Vs State

Harun Rasid @ Gopal Vs State