Between vs And
2021 Latest Caselaw 4002 HP

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

                   ON THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
                                BEFORE




                                                          .
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR





    1.        CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.811 of 2021
    Between





    JITENDER KUMAR
    S/O SHRI DAULAT RAM VERMA,
    R/O VILLAGE GULOO,
    POST OFFICE JAIS,





    TEHSIL THEOG,
    DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                    r                               ......PETITIONER
    (BY SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    AND
    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                                 ......RESPONDENT
    (BY SHRI DINESH THAKUR,


    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
         2.     CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.812 of 2021
    Between




    SANJEEV KUMAR





    S/O SHRI DAULAT RAM VERMA,
    R/O VILLAGE GULOO,
    POST OFFICE JAIS,
    TEHSIL THEOG,





    DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                                    ......PETITIONER
    (BY SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
    AND
    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                                  ......RESPONDENT
    (BY SHRI DINESH THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)




                                         ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:41 :::CIS
                                   Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021
                                   ...2...

      3.     CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.813 of 2021

    Between




                                                            .

    PANKAJ
    S/O SHRI RAMLAL,
    R/O VILLAGE BAGANAL,
    POST OFFICE PARALA,





    TEHSIL THEOG,
    DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                                      ......PETITIONER





    (BY SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)

    AND
    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                 r                                  ......RESPONDENT

    (BY SHRI DINESH THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
      4.     CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) No.814 of 2021


    Between

    SANJAY
    S/O HEM PRAKASH SHARMA,




    R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE BHARANA,
    TEHSIL THEOG,





    DISTRICT SHIMLA,
    HIMACHAL PRADESH.
                                                      ......PETITIONER





    (BY SHRI MOHAN SHARMA, ADVOCATE)
    AND
    STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                                                   ......RESPONDENT
    (BY SHRI DINESH THAKUR,
    ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL)
    Whether approved for reporting? Yes.




                                           ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:54:41 :::CIS
                                    Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021
                                      ...3...
         These petitions coming on for orders this day, the
    Court passed the following:

                                 JUDGMENT

.

Petitioners, in all the aforesaid petitions, have

approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail, under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short

'Cr.PC), in case FIR No.23 of 2021, dated 3.3.2021, registered

under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of the Indian Penal Code

(for short 'IPC'), in Police Station East, Shimla.

2. Status Report stands filed, wherein it is stated that

Shri Navin Kumar Patial, Branch Manager of State Bank of

India, Panthaghati (Shimla), presented an application/ to the

police, stating therein that on 8.12.2015, petitioners Jitender

Verma and Sanjeev Kumar approached State Bank of Bikaner

and Jaipur (now after merger, State Bank of India) and made a

request for grant of Home Loan of `15,00,000/- for purchase of

property, and that request of these petitioners was considered

by the Bank and the Bank agreed to grant Home Loan on the

terms and conditions as stipulated in the Sanction Letter.

Thereafter, in order to secure the loan, these petitioners

mortgaged their property and deposited original title

document, i.e. Sale Deed, registered vide registration

No.2698, vide which equitable mortgage has been created,

and the bank sanctioned the land and asked these two

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...4...

petitioners to execute registered mortgage deed also, on

which they deposited mortgage deed registered vide

.

registration No.8890. When bank official visited the property,

he found that the borrowers had sold all the flats in the

property and same was confirmed by the Bank's Empanelled

Advocate in his title investigation report that said sale deed

was not found registered with sub Registrar, Shimla.

3. It is stated in the Status Report that the aforesaid

two petitioners had also approached the aforesaid Bank, on

15.6.2015, and made a request/applied for grant of Home

Loan of `20,00,000/- for completion/finishing of semi-finished

house, which was sanctioned on the terms and conditions

mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the purpose

supplied and deposited mortgage deed registered in the office

of Sub Registrar Theog, vide Registration No.479, but, on

inquiry, the said mortgage deed was found to be forged and

fabricated document.

4. It has been stated that petitioner Sanjay, in

connivance with petitioners Jitender Verma and Sanjeev

Kumar, on 28.12.2016, approached the aforesaid bank for

grant of loan of `20,00,000/- for purchase of entire RCC frame

structure of Ground Floor and Parking Floor of under

construction building, which was sanctioned on the terms and

conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and for the

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...5...

purpose petitioner Sanjay deposited original sale deed with

the bank, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the Office of Sub

.

Registrar Shimla, vide registration No.2580 and also deposited

Mortgage Deed registered in the Office of Sub Registrar

Shimla vide Registration No.1625, but, on inquiry, it was found

that the property mentioned in the deeds was not in the name

of the borrower and it was also confirmed on inquiry from

office of Patwari.

5. It is further stated in the Status Report that

petitioner Pankaj also, in connivance with petitioners Jitender

Verma and Sanjeev Kumar, approached the aforesaid Bank on

23.2.2017 and applied for grant of loan of `20,00,000/- for

purchase of semi-finished flat, which was sanctioned on the

terms and conditions mentioned in the Sanction Letter, and

for the purpose petitioner Pankaj deposited original Sale Deed,

i.e. Sale Deed registered in the office of Sub Registrar Shimla,

vide registration No.146 and thereafter also deposited

Mortgage Deed, registered in the office of Sub Registrar

Shimla, vide registration No.1676, but, on inquiry by the

Empanelled Advocate of the Bank, it was found that neither

the Sale Deed belonged to petitioner Pankaj nor the Mortgage

Deed was in existence.

6. It is also in the Status Report that petitioner

Sanjeev Kumar had also approached the aforesaid Bank on

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...6...

20.9.2016, for grant of Home Loan of `20,00,000/-, which was

sanctioned on the terms and conditions mentioned in the

.

Sanction Letter, and for the purpose deposited original title

deed with the Bank, i.e. Sale Deed registered in the Office of

Sub Registrar Solan, vide registration on 2341, and, on

inquiry, it was found that the property mentioned in the deed

was not in the name of petitioner Sanjeev Kumar and that the

document was found to have been false, fabricated and

forged, prepared to cheat the Bank.

7. It is stated in the Status Report that the

petitioners, in order to cheat the bank of its public money,

prepared false and fabricated documents.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid application/complaint

of the Branch Manager of the State Bank of India, Panthaghati

(Shimla), FIR in question has been registered.

9. Petitioners had also applied for anticipatory bail

before the Additional Sessions Judge (1), Shimla, and after

obtaining interim bail, they had joined investigation, but said

bail application was dismissed on 20.4.2021. Thereafter, the

present applications have been filed and the petitioners have

again joined the investigation.

10. As per Status Report, during interrogation, the

petitioners disclosed that they are relatives of each other and

are doing business of construction and selling of buildings and

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...7...

they were procuring loans on the basis of fabricated

documents and such documents were got prepared by them

.

through one Amit Kumar, but they did not disclose the

permanent address of Amit Kumar but disclosed his mobile

number only.

11. As per Status Report, on the basis of information

collected, search of Amit Kumar was made in Tutu (Shimla)

and during that search it came in the light that Amit Kumar

had expired on 7.2.2019 at Zirakpur. According to Status

Report, petitioners have concocted a false story to save

themselves and necessity for their custodial interrogation has

been pressed, in order to elucidate information with respect to

fabrication of documents and Revenue Stamps and other

persons involved in commission of crime.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that the investigation in the matter is almost complete and

the petitioners are not required for interrogation, and,

therefore, keeping in view that bail is rule and jail is exception,

the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel has

also submitted that the petitioners are the residents of State

of Himachal Pradesh, there is no likelihood of their fleeing

from justice, and in case they are released on bail, they

undertake to abide by all the conditions that may be imposed

upon them.

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...8...

13. Learned Deputy Advocate General has submitted

that the petitioners are involved in the case of cheating a

.

Bank, by submitting documents to the Bank, which, on inquiry

were found to be forged and fabricated, and thereby they

have cheated the Bank of huge public money. He has also

submitted that in case the petitioners are released on bail,

there is every possibility of their fleeing from justice and it

would be very difficult to apprehend them. So, the learned

Additional Advocate General has prayed for dismissal of the

bail application

14. Undoubtedly, as pleaded by learned counsel for

the petitioner, bail is rule and jail is exception. But, at the

same time, this rule does not mean that in every case bail is

to be granted in all eventualities. The Supreme Court, in its

various pronouncements, as also referred by this Court in

State of Sandeep v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in

2019(1) Shim.LC 263, has culled out various factors and

parameters to be taken into consideration at the time of

deciding the bail applications, which also include denial of bail

based on those factors and principles. The general rule 'bail

but not jail' cannot be used as a weapon to render the

provisions, empowering the Court to reject the bail redundant,

and/or as a guiding factor to enlarge an accused on bail, in

every case.

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...9...

15. The Supreme Court has considered the right to

pre-arrest bail, provided under Section 438 Cr.PC, and factors

.

and parameters to be taken into consideration by the Courts,

while accepting or rejecting a bail petition under Section 438

Cr.PC, in numerous cases, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia &

others v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565; Savitri Agarwal

and others v. State of Maharashtra and another, (2009) 8 SCC

325; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra

and others, (2011) 1 SCC 694; Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v.

State of Gujarat and another, (2016) 1 SCC 152; Special Leave

Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281 of 2017 and 7282 of 2017, decided

on 19.1.2020, titled as Sushila Aggarwal & Others v. State (NCT

of Delhi) & another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 ; Fekan Yadav v. Satendr

Yadav alias Boss Yadav alias Satendra Kumar and others,

(2017) 16 SCC 775; Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 6

SCC 571; and Prem Giri v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 12 SCC

20}, which have been referred in Freed and other connected

matters v. State, reported in 2020(4) Shim.LC 1614.

16. This Court in Freed's case supra has observed as

under:

"17. Fundamental of criminal jurisprudence postulates 'presumption of innocence', meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty and grant of bail is the general rule and putting a person in jail or in prison or in correction home, during trial, is an exception and bail is not to be withheld as a punishment and it is also necessary

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...10...

to consider whether the accused is a first time offender or has been accused of other offences and, if so, nature of such offence and his or her general conduct also requires consideration. Character of

.

the complainant and accused is also a relevant

factor. Reiterating these principles, the Apex Court in Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22, has also observed that however it should not be understood to mean that

bail should be granted in every case, and the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the Judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately.

18.

While considering a bail application, it would be necessary on the part of the Court to see culpability of the accused and his involvement in the commission of organized crime, either directly or

indirectly, and also to consider the question from the

angle as to whether applicant was possessed of the requisite mens rea. Interim bail, pending investigation, can be granted, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.

...........

21. Dealing with the provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC, the Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24, has

observed as under:

"Grant of Anticipatory bail in exceptional cases

69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the

presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre- arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...11...

anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory

.

bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a

matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.

70. On behalf of the appellant, much arguments were advanced contending that anticipatory bail is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It was contended that unless custodial interrogation is warranted, in

the facts and circumstances of the case, denial of anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the right conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

71. Article 21 of the Constitution of India states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure prescribed by law. However, the power conferred by Article 21 of the

Constitution of India is not unfettered and is qualified by the later part of the Article i.e. "....except according to a procedure prescribed by law." In State of M.P. and another v. Ram Kishna Balothia, (1995) 3 SCC

221, the Supreme Court held that the right of anticipatory bail is not a part of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India and held as under: (SCC p.226, para 7)

"7. ........We find it difficult to accept the

contention that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an integral part of Article 21. In the first place, there was no provision similar to Section 438 in the old Criminal Procedure Code. The Law Commission in its 41st Report recommended introduction of a provision for grant of anticipatory bail. It observed:

'We agree that this would be a useful advantage. Though we must add

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...12...

that it is in very exceptional cases that such power should be exercised.'

In the light of this recommendation, Section

.

438 was incorporated, for the first time, in the

Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. Looking to the cautious recommendation of the Law Commission, the power to grant anticipatory bail is conferred only on a Court of Session or

the High Court. Also, anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a matter of right. It is essentially a statutory right conferred long after the coming into force of the Constitution. It cannot be considered as an essential ingredient of Article 21 of the Constitution.

And its non-application to a certain special category of offences cannot be considered as violative of Article 21." (emphasis supplied)

72. We are conscious of the fact that the

legislative intent behind the introduction of

Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in

view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual, rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the

personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest. It cannot be said that refusal

to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

73. The learned Solicitor General has submitted that depending upon the facts of each case, it is for the investigating agency to confront the accused with the material, only when the accused is in custody. It was submitted that the statutory right under Section 19 of PMLA has an in-built safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power of arrest by the investigating officer. Submitting that custodial interrogation is a recognised mode of interrogation which is not only permissible

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...13...

but has been held to be more effective, the learned Solicitor General placed reliance upon State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187; Sudhir v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 1 SCC

.

146; and Directorate of Enforcement v.

Hassan Ali Khan, (2011) 12 SCC 684.

74. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of the investigation intended to secure several

purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's

right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In State v.

Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, the Supreme

Court held as under: (SCC p.189, para 6)

"6. We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation- oriented

than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous

advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which

would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest

bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-

degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...14...

responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders."

.

75. Observing that the arrest is a part of the investigation intended to secure several purposes, in Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC 303, it was held as under: (SCC

p.313, para 19)

"19. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes. The accused may have to be questioned in detail

regarding various facets of motive, preparation, commission and aftermath of the crime and the connection of other persons, if any, in the crime. There may be circumstances in which the accused r may provide information leading to

discovery of material facts. It may be necessary to curtail his freedom in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and to protect witnesses and persons connected with

the victim of the crime, to prevent his disappearance, to maintain law and order in the locality. For these or other reasons, arrest may become an inevitable part of the process of

investigation. The legality of the proposed arrest cannot be gone into in

an application under Section 438 of the Code. The role of the investigator is well defined and the jurisdictional scope of interference by the court in the process

of investigation is limited. The court ordinarily will not interfere with the investigation of a crime or with the arrest of the accused in a cognizable offence. An interim order restraining arrest, if passed while dealing with an application under Section 438 of the Code will amount to interference in the investigation, which cannot, at any rate, be done under Section 438 of the Code."

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...15...

76. In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, the Supreme Court laid down the factors and parameters to be considered while dealing

.

with anticipatory bail. It was held that the

nature and the gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made and that the court must evaluate the available material

against the accused very carefully. It was also held that the court should also consider whether the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.

77. After referring to Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and other judgments and observing that anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, in Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, (2012) 4 r SCC 379, the Supreme Court held as under:

(SCC p.386, para 19)

"19. Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail in a serious offence are required to be satisfied and further while granting such relief,

the court must record the reasons therefor. Anticipatory bail can be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the court is prima facie of the view that the applicant has falsely been enroped in the crime and would

not misuse his liberty. (See D.K. Ganesh Babu v. P.T. Manokaran, (2007) 4 SCC 434, State of

Maharashtra v. Mohd. Sajid Husain Mohd. S. Husain, (2008) 1 SCC 213 and Union of India v. Padam Narain Aggarwal, (2008) 13 SCC

305.)""

17. In Mangal Singh Negi v. Central Bureau of

Investigation, reported in 2021(2) Shim.LC 860, this Court

observed as under:

"22. Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. Arrest of an offender during

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...16...

investigation, as discussed supra, is duly prescribed in Cr.P.C.

23. At the same time, Cr.P.C. also contains

.

Chapter XXXIII, providing provision as to bail and

bonds, which empowers the Magistrate, Sessions Court and High Court to grant bail to a person arrested by the Police/Investigating Officer in accordance with provisions contained in this

Chapter. This Chapter also contains Section 438 empowering the Court to issue directions for grant of bail to a person apprehending his arrest. Normally, such bail is called as "Anticipatory Bail". Scope and ambit of law on Anticipatory Bail has been elucidated by the Courts time and again.

24. Initially, provision for granting Anticipatory Bail by the court was not in the Cr.P.C., but on the recommendation of the Law commission of India in its 41st Report, the Commission had pointed out

necessity for introducing a set provision in the

Cr.P.C. enabling the High Court and Court of Session to grant Anticipatory Bail, mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained

in jail for some days. It was also observed by the Commission that with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency was showing signs and steady increase and further that where there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person

accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty, while on bail, there

seems no justification to require him to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. On the basis of these recommendations, provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

was included in Cr.P.C. as an antidote for preventing arrest and detention in false case. Therefore, interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C., in larger public interest, has been done by the Courts by reading it with Article 21 of the Constitution of India to keep arbitrary and unreasonable limitations on personal liberty at bay. The essence of mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India is the basic concept of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

25. Section 438 Cr.P.C. empowers the Court either to reject the application forthwith or issue an interim

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...17...

order for grant of Anticipatory Bail, at the first instance, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the factors stated in sub-section (1) of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and in case of issuance of an interim order

.

for grant of Anticipatory Bail the application shall be

finally heard by the Court after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Police/ Prosecution. Section 438 Cr.P.C. prescribes certain factors which are to be considered at the time of

passing interim order for grant of Anticipatory Bail amongst others, but no such factors have been prescribed for taking into consideration at the time of final hearing of the case. Undoubtedly, those factors which are necessary to be considered at the time of granting interim bail are also relevant for

considering the bail application at final stage.

26. A balance has to be maintained between the right of personal liberty and the right of Investigating Agency to investigate and to arrest an offender for

the purpose of investigation, keeping view various

parameters as elucidated by the court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal & others v. State (NCT of Delhi) & another, (2020) 5 SCC 1 cases and also in other pronouncements referred by learned counsel for

CBI."

18. Considering the factors and parameters,

necessary to be considered for adjudication of anticipatory

bail under Section 438 Cr.PC, as propounded by the Supreme

Court as referred by this Court in Freed's case (supra) and

various other pronouncements of the Supreme Court, referred

supra, but without commenting on merits of evidence

produced before me, I find that it is not a fit case for

continuation of bail under Section 438 Cr.PC.

19. Needless to say that petitioners have a right to

approach the Court, under Section 439 Cr.PC, seeking regular

Cr.MPs(M) No.811 to 814 of 2021 ...18...

bail. In such eventuality, such application shall be considered

on the basis of its own merits, within parameters relevant for

.

adjudication of that.

20. Observations made in this petition hereinbefore,

shall not affect the merits of the case in any manner and are

strictly confined for the disposal of the bail application.

Petition is dismissed and disposed of.

                                             ( Vivek Singh Thakur )
    August 19, 2021(sd)                               Judge.