Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyanarayan Shrivastava vs State (2023:Rj-Jd:40407) on 23 November, 2023
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:40407]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2366/2022
Satyanarayan Shrivastava S/o Sh. Om Prakash Shrivastava,
Aged About 48 Years, 46-47, Vidhya Nagar, Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/11/2023
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Industrial Area
3. District Pali
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 420, 467, 468, 471
and 120-B of the IPC
5. Offences added, if any Section 406 of the IPC and
Section 66 -C of IT Act.
6. Date of passing of 07.02.2022
impugned order
2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the
afore-mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory
bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made
out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are
[2023:RJ-JD:40407] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2366/2022]
no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant
of anticipatory bail to the accused- petitioner and he has been
made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant
of anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. As per the
allegations, the petitioner prepared a forged receipt of Rs. 2 lacs.
The offences involved in case are triable by a Court of Magistrate.
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate. An interim order was
passed in favour of the petitioner on 17.02.2022 restraining his
arrest in the present case, whereafter around one year and 10
months have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the said
protection since then and he has not misused the liberty during
this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been received
by this court. The present is not a case where custodial
interrogation is required since the document is already in
possession of the police. The petitioner is ready to co-operate with
the investigation. The judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR
2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present case, where
custodial investigation would not be required.
6. In the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. State of Dehli
(Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in 2022/INSC/275,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted anticipatory bail simply on
[2023:RJ-JD:40407] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2366/2022]
the ground of an interim order which was operating in favour of
the petitioner since more than one year but the liberty so granted
was never misused by him. In this view of the matter and taking
into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of
the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of
either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from
commenting on the niceties of the matter.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have
been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(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
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
[2023:RJ-JD:40407] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2366/2022]
(iv) If the petitioner shall not co-operate with the
investigation and would not appear before the
Investigating Officer as and when directed by him,
the learned Public Prosecutor would be at liberty to
approach this Court again for cancellation of the
bail granted in favour of the petitioner.
(FARJAND ALI),J
104-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
