Allowed

Mangilal v. State

Rajasthan HC4 May 2020CRLMB/3238/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected anticipatory bail applications filed by accused persons apprehending arrest in corruption and criminal charges under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The High Court allowed the applications granting bail subject to a personal bond and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- each and conditions of availability for interrogation, no inducement to witnesses, and no departure from India without permission.

Mangilal Vs State — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3238/2020

¶3

Mangilal S/o Sh. Vakta Ji Gayari, Aged About 45 Years, Auto Ka Guda, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶4

Nathulal S/o Sh. Vakta Ji Gayari, Aged About 47 Years, Auto Ka Guda, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioners

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3240/2020

¶11

Mangi Bai W/o Sh. Dhanna Ji Gameti, Aged About 50 Years, Bodo Guda, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, The Than Ward Panch Ward No.1, Village Panchayat Amberi, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶12

Sh. Kalu S/o Lakhma Ji Gameti, Aged About 45 Years, Mero Ka Guda, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, The Than Ward Panch Ward No.3, Village Panchayat Amberi, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶13

Sh. Gamer Lal S/o Sh. Pema Ji Gameti, Aged About 51 Years, Pratappura,, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, The Than Ward Panch Ward No. 8, Village Panchayat Amberi, Panchayat Samiti Badgaon, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus]

State, Through PP

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harish Purohit, through video call For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.k. Bhati, through video call

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-3238/2020]

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶22

Order

¶23

04/05/2020

¶24

As per advisory, with regard to serious pandemic and infection of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), issued by the World Health Organisation (WHO), Rajasthan High Court, Central Government and the State Government for effective control over spread of COVID-19, none present in-person on behalf of the parties.

¶25

These two anticipatory bail applications have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.447/2014, Police Station ACB Chowki, Udaipur for the offences under Sections 13(1)(C)(D)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 193, 409 & 120-B of IPC.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor through video call.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the benefit of bail was granted to the co-accused Girish, Smt. Juli Dangi and Dilkush Nahar by this Court. He also stated that the benefit of bail in similar another case has also been granted to accusedpetitioners by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2020.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners viz. Mangilal, Nathulal, Smt. Mangi Bai, Kalu and Gamer Lal, in connection with F.I.R. No.447/2014, Police Station ACB Chowki, Udaipur, the

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CRLMB-3238/2020]

¶32

petitioners shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶33

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

¶34

(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

¶35

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

¶36

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶37

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶38

43-44 Arvind/-

Mangilal v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal 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

Jasa Ram Vs State

Manish Vs State

Ankur Mangla Vs State

Lalchand Vs State

Manohar Lal Vs State

Chandan Singh Vs State