Allowed

Manchharam Purohit v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2020CRLMB/667/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in an FIR alleging cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy, subject to conditions including a personal bond, appearance for interrogation, non-interference, and permission to travel abroad.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to conditions for appearance, non-inducement, and permission for travel abroad.

Manchharam Purohit Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 667/2020

¶3

Manchharam Purohit S/o Shri Magaram Ji Purohit, Aged About 61 Years, R/o. Village Bhaamra, Tehsil Reoder, District Sirohi (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	J. P. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Laxman Solanki,PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶10

Order

¶11

06/02/2020

¶12

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.149/2019, Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC.

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the sequence of events, the petitioner is a loan supervisor and he has signed the documents placed before him on the information supplied and verified by Patwari and, thereafter by the chairman and the administrator of the society. There is no direct involvement of the present petitioner having committed any forgery in the documents produced before him. The petitioner has retired from service. There are no antecedents of like nature

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-667/2020]

¶17

reported throughout his service career. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶18

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

¶19

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

¶20

Accordingly, the present bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Manchharam Purohit S/o Shri Magaram Ji Purohit in connection with F.I.R. No.149/2019, Police Station Mandar, District Sirohi, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶21

(I) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii) that the petitioner 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

¶23

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

¶24

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶25

61-SunilS/-

Manchharam Purohit v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manchharam Purohit 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

Naresh Kumar @ Laddu Vs State

Nand Ram Kukna Vs State

Vijay Pal Vs State

Surpal Vs State

Vishal Vs State

Jaspal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan