Allowed

Pritam Kumar Swami S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Jul 2024CRLMB/4932/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail to two petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR for cheating. The court noted the petitioners had already been interrogated by the police and granted bail subject to certain conditions including furnishing a bond and not leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners to furnish personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Pritam Kumar Swami S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:31825]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4932/2024

¶4

Pritam Kumar Swami S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Plot Number 96, Swami Mohalla, Govindpura Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West), At Present Tenant House No. 6, Radhe Vatika, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5477/2024 Sunil S/o Pritham Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Plot Number -96, Swami Mohalla, Govindpura, Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur West, At Present Tenant House No. 6, Radhe Vatika, Kalwar Road, Jaipur.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupt Chopra, PP Mr. Amit Sikaria, for complainant

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶17

Judgment / Order

¶18

26/07/2024

¶19

This bail application has been filed u/S 438 Cr.P.C. by the petitioners in connection with FIR No. 118/2024 registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West) for offence under Section 420, 406 IPC.

¶20

The Coordinate Bench of this Court, after considering the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and the

[2024:RJ-JP:31825]

[CRLMB-4932/2024]

(2 of 3)

allegations against the petitioners vide order dated 26.04.2024 directed the petitioner-Pritam Kumar Swami to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and further vide order dated 19.07.2024 directed the petitioner Sunil to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in compliance of order dated 26.04.2024 the petitioner-Pritam Kumar Swami appeared before the IO on 13.05.2024 and he has been interrogated. He further submits that the accused petitionerSunil has also appeared before the IO and he has also been interrogated by the IO. He further submits that the petitioners are no more required for any kind of interrogation and recovery.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the allegations against the petitioners are of serious nature and recovery of the amount is to be made from the accused petitioners, for which custodial interrogation is necessary.

¶27

Having considered the allegations levelled against the petitioners and so also the material fact that the petitioners have already been interrogated by the police when they were directed by this Court to appear before the IO, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of this case, deems just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

¶28

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners in connection with FIR No.118/2024 registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West) shall be

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-4932/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:31825]

released on bail, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) (each) with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶34

(ii) that the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶36

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶37

GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /172-173

Pritam Kumar Swami S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kumar Swami S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

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

Sitaram @ Gyani S/O Shri Hiralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar S/O Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahil S/O Shri Aas Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deshraj S/O Ramjilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bhambhani S/O Kanhaiya Pritam Bhambhani Vs State of Rajasthan