Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harshvardhan Johari S/O Shri Govind ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2024
Author: Ganesh Ram Meena
Bench: Ganesh Ram Meena
[2024:RJ-JP:29878]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7581/2024
Harshvardhan Johari S/o Shri Govind Johari, R/o T-2, Pallavi
Apartments, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Presently At C-7, Prithviraj Road,
C-Scheme, Jaipur
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mehla, learned Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Hemant Nahta for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order Date of Reserve ::: July 12, 2024 Date of Pronouncement ::: July 30, 2024
1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner under section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 199/2010 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North), for the offences punishable under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC.
2. The learned Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments submitted a status report dated 02.07.2024 in regard to the investigation of criminal case i.e. FIR No.199/2019 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North), which is taken on record. (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (2 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
3. At the very outset Mr. Hemant Nahta, counsel appearing for the complainant raised an issue that the petitioner has made serious concealment of fact that he has been declared as an absconder by the learned trial court including the fact that Standing Warrants have already been issued by the learned trial court against him in the cases arising from FIR No.199/2010 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North) and also FIR No.144/2015 registered at Police Station Moti Doongari, Jaipur City (East).
4. Counsel for the complainant further submitted that the petitioner has already preferred two separate criminal misc. petitions bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 1054/2024 and 1389/2023 under section 482 CrPC so as to quash the proceedings of FIR No.144/2005 and 199/2010 wherein no interim relief has been allowed to him and this fact has also been concealed by the petitioner. Counsel further submitted that the proceedings under sections 82 and 83 CrPC have already been initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner cannot be considered on factual merits. Counsel also submitted that the police after conclusion of the investigation has already submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC as the petitioner is not traceable.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (3 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
5. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sneh Deep Khyaliya have submitted that the petitioner is not a proclaimed offender as he has not been declared as a proclaimed offender by the Competent Court by making a declaration as required under sub-section (4) of section 82 CrPC. Senior Counsel further submitted that filing of the criminal misc. petitions for quashing of the FIR and the consequential proceedings does not debar the petitioner from claiming anticipatory bail. Senior Counsel also submitted that filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC also does not preclude him from seeking a relief of anticipatory bail under section 438 CrPC.
6. The provision of section 82 CrPC deals with the proclamation of a person absconding, which reads as under:-
"Section 82. Proclamation for person absconding (1) If Any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specific place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows
--
(i)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (4 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
a) it shall be publicly read in some
conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or home-stead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house;
ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of Sub-
Section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under Sub- Section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (5 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] (5) The provisions of Sub-Sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under Sub-Section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under Sub-Section (1)."
7. For declaring an accused as a proclaimed offender, a declaration is required to be made under sub-section (4) of section 82 CrPC. On a query put to the counsel for the complainant and the learned Public Prosecutor 'Whether any such declaration as required under sub-section (4) of section 82 CrPC has been made as regards against the petitioner or not?' The counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor answered that they have no such information.
8. As per sub-section (4) of section 82 CrPC, the Competent Court may after making such inquiry as it thinks fit pronounce an accused as a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect only where a proclamation published under sub-section (2) is in respect of a person accused of offences punishable under sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of IPC and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation.
9. As per the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor, the allegations found proved against the petitioner are punishable under sections 420 and 120B IPC (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (6 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] only as has been recorded on page 20 of the status report. The status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor also does not disclose that the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender under sections 82-83 CrPC.
10. In support of his submissions counsel appearing for the complainant has relied upon the judgments passed in the cases of Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2012 (8) SCC 730 and the Directorate of Enforcement vs. P.V. Prabhakar Rao, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 647. Counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that para No.12 and 14 of the judgment delivered in the case of Lavesh (supra) are relevant, which are quoted as under:-
"12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and declared as "absconder". Normally, when the accused is "absconding" and declared as a "proclaimed offender", there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code is not entitled the relief of anticipatory bail.
14. Another circumstance against the appellant is that even though this Court on 23.03.2012, while ordering notice, granted interim protection, namely, not to arrest the appellant in connection (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (7 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] with FIR No. 259/2011 registered at Police Station, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi, it is the claim of the respondent-State that the appellant did not cooperate and visit the said police station. Though Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant visited the police station on 23.03.2012, 20.07.2012, 24.07.2012 and 27.07.2012, it is brought to our notice that at the relevant period, viz., 07.04.2012, 01.05.2012 and 18.06.2012, he neither visited the police station nor contacted Mr. Narender Khatri, Inspector - Investigation, Punjabi Bagh Police Station. The last three dates are relevant since after getting the interim protection granted by this Court on 23.03.2012, the appellant did not care either to visit the police station or to the Investigation Officer concerned. The claim of his visit on later dates, particularly, in the month of July, 2012 have no relevance. Considering his conduct, not amenable for investigation and, moreover, declaring him as an absconder, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. Thus, the conduct of the appellant does not entitle him to anticipatory bail as prescribed in Section 438 of the Code."
11. Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his submissions has also relied upon various judgments so as to show that the application under section 438 CrPC is maintainable even after proceedings under sections 82-83 CrPC, after filing of the charge-sheet under section 299 CrPC, which are as under:-
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (8 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
1. Karan Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. bail Application No.1360/2024), decided on 05.02.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
2. Jitendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.b. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13900/2023) decided on 23.11.2023 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
3. Sitaram vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B Criminal Bail Application No. 12675/2022) decided on 01.08.2023 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
4. Jagdish Nautiyal Vs. State, reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5940.
5. Saubhagya Bhagat Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. & Other connected matters, decided by High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Utt 917.
6. Ravindra Saxena Vs. State of Rajasthan, reorted in (2010) 1 SCC 684;
7. Balveer Singh Bundela Vs. State of M.P., reported in I.L.r.
(2020) M.P. 1216.
8. Rishabh Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.5767/2017), decided on 08.03.2018.
9. Sanjay Bhandari Vs. State of Delhi, decided by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10203.
10. Bhavin Tanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 3072/2022, decided on 24.05.2022 by the Coordinate Bench, Principal Seat at Jodhpur.
12. Though the counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor have not been able to show that the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (9 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] offender by issuing a declaration under sub-section (4) of section 82 CrPC. This Court is dealing with the legal question raised that after initiation of proceedings under sections 82- 83 CrPC that 'Whether anticipatory bail of an accused under section 438 CrPC can be entertained and decided on merits or not?'
13. In the case of Karan Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the anticipatory bail application of accused therein in para Nos. 4 and 5 has observed as under:-
"4. Section 82 of Cr.P.C. provides for issuance of proclamation against absconding persons. It says that if any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant of arrest has been issued by it, has absconded or concealed himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time, not less than 30 days, from the date of publishing such proclamation.
5. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the reason to believe must be supported by material on record. The material on record would be in the nature of service of summons on the petitioners or execution of warrant of arrest against the petitioners. Only by issuance of summons and warrants, it cannot be assumed the same were served on the petitioners."(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (10 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] In the case of Jitendra Singh (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the anticipatory bail application of accused therein in para 8 has observed as under:-
"8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that the reason to believe must be supported by material on record. The material on record would be in the nature of service of summons on the petitioner or execution of warrant of arrest against the petitioner. Only by issuance of summons and warrant, it cannot be assumed the same were served on the petitioner."
In the case of Sitaram (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court while disposing of the anticipatory bail application of accused therein in para Nos. 6, 7 and 8 has observed as under:-
"6. I have heard and considered the arguments advanced at bar and perused the material available on record. Apparently, in this case, now the police has filed the charge-sheet and, therefore, custodial interrogation is not required in this matter. It is also evident from record that only warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act has been obtained by the police to file charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C., while proceedings under Section 82 & 83 Cr.P.C have not attained finality.
7. In my considered opinion, it cannot be held that anticipatory bail application is not (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (11 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] maintainable as the petitioner was not declared absconder and no proclamation was issued against the petitioner till filing of the anticipatory bail application. Merely issuance of warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act does not mean that the petitioner is absconding. In case of Bharat Choudhary (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail will be maintainable after charge-sheet is filed or cognizance is taken. In case of Ravindra Saxena (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court considering the same situation held that after filing of the charge sheet, anticipatory bail application can be entertained. In case of Amar Nath Neogi (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the identical situation and considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, directed the accused to appear before the trial court and submit his bail bonds. In case of Lavesh (supra), it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the person who is "absconding" and declared as "proclaimed offender" is not entitled to seek anticipatory bail application normally. It was made clear in the aforesaid case of Lavesh (supra) that when the accused is absconding and has also been declared "proclaimed offender", case of granting anticipatory bail does not arise. In this case, while laying down the law, Hon'ble Apex Court has used word "normally" in reference to the anticipatory bail application, preferred by a "proclaimed offender".
Neither the provisions under Section 82 Cr.P.C. nor under Section 438 Cr.P.C. impose any restriction on the filing of anticipatory bail by an absconder. (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (12 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] As a rule of thumb, it cannot be said that absconder, against whom a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is not issued, is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
8. In the present case, admittedly, proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 Cr.P.C. have not attained finality. Arrest should be the last option and should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arrest of the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court must carefully examine entire material available on record and particularly, the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and the allegations should be corroborated by other material and circumstances on record."
The High Court of Delhi in the case of Jagdish Nautiyal (supra) while allowing the anticipatory bail of accused therein has observed in para No.14 as under:-
"14. I do not agree with this contention of the learned APP that merely because process under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the accused that this should be a sufficient ground for denying the grant of anticipatory bail if it is otherwise made out. Every reasonable person who has approached the Court for grant of anticipatory bail will keep away from the investigation for sometime so that his bail application does not become infructuous."(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (13 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] The Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rishabh Sethi (supra) after considering various judgments has observed as under:-
"However, since the offence of Section 120-B IPC as also the offences under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2) & 14 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been alleged against the accused-petitioner in FIR no.217/2016, he can at the most be termed as proclaimed person, and not a proclaimed offender.
But it is pertinent to note that for this purpose also the mandatory requirements of proper publication of proclamation declaring the accused- petitioner absconder needs to be followed. Sub- section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is relevant in this regard, which is as follows :-
"Section 82. Proclamation for person absconding (1) ................................................................ (2) The proclamation shall be published as follows
--
(i)
a) it shall be publicly read in some
conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or home-stead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (14 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court house;
ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
......................................................................"
On perusal of the above provision, it appears that the mode of publishing the copy of proclamation in daily news-paper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides is only additional and may be adopted at the option of the Court concerned. But so far as the modes mentioned in sub-clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C are concerned, they appear to be mandatory. There is no dispute on this point that no copy of proclamation was affixed to some conspicuous part of the court house as required under sub-clause (c) of Section 82(2)(i) Cr.P.C." The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Sanjay Bhandari (supra) has observed in para Nos. 14, 30, 31 and 32 as under:-
"14. If the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State were to be accepted - that every person in respect of whom a proclamation has been published is deemed to be a proclaimed offender irrespective of the provisions of Section 82(4) - then the consequence would be that a person qua whom a proclamation has been published and is not accused of any of the offences mentioned in Section 82(4), would be deemed so, (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (15 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] without the safeguard of an inquiry stipulated in section 82(4). This can certainly not be the intention of the legislature. The offence enumerated in section 82(4) are serious in nature. It could not be the intention of the legislature that qua a person who is accused of offences that are serious in nature, the safe guard of an inquiry is stipulated and no such safeguard is stipulated qua a person who is accused of offences that may not be so serious.
30. The provisions of Section 82 to 84 become applicable on the issuance of the proclamation and are not dependent on the declaration under section 82(4).
31. I am thus of the view that a person who is accused of offences other than the ones enumerated in section 82(4) and qua whom a proclamation has been published under section 82(1) would be a 'Proclaimed person' and not a deemed 'Proclaimed Offender'.
32. As noticed above, there is no provision other than section 82(4) for pronouncing such a person as a proclaimed offender and 82(4) applies only in respect of persons accused of sections of IPC enumerated therein."
The Coordinate Bench of the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Bhavin Tanwar (supra) has observed in para Nos. 17, 18 and 19 as under:-
"17. In the opinion of this Court, before issuing standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, the trial Court is (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (16 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] required to record a categorical finding/ satisfaction that in spite of knowledge of the warrant, the petitioner has avoided appearance in the Court or has evaded the warrant. Simply because bailable warrants have been ordered to be issued or as a matter of fact have been issued without report of their service/execution, the trial Court should not and cannot issue standing warrant and initiate proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, as a matter of course or routine.
18. The trial Court seems to have been swayed by the purported directions issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court to decide Negotiable Instrument cases expeditiously. Expeditious disposal of cases is necessary but equally necessary is to observe mandate of law including procedural law.
19. In the opinion of this Court, endeavor of a Court should be to ensure proper compliance of the statutory provisions and service of the summons as mandated by law. Service of summons is a bed- rock of principles of natural justice. The Courts should not rush to issue standing warrant and initiating proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code, unless they are satisfied that the accused is intentionally evading or circumventing the warrants in order to avoid the prosecution."
The High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in the case of Saubhagya Bhagat (supra) has observed in para 50 as under:-
"50. In view of the legal position as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that an (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (17 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] application seeking anticipatory bail would be maintainable even after filing of charge sheet in the Court. The reference is answered accordingly."
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Saxena (supra) has observed in para 9 as under:-
"9. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have left the matter to the Magistrate only on the ground that the challan has now been presented. There is also no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because the allegation in this case pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security. The merits of these issues shall have to be assessed at the time of the trial of the accused persons and denial of anticipatory bail only on the ground that the challan has been presented would not satisfy the requirements of Sections 437 and 438 CrPC."
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Balveer Singh Bundela (supra) in para Nos. 24, 31 and 33 has observed as under:-
"24. From the discussion of judgments of Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. and Sushila Aggarwal (supra) as well as judgment of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and Ravindra Saxena (supra), it is apparently clear that no bar can exist against a person seeking anticipatory bail. In other words application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet or till the person is not arrested.(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (18 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
31. Therefore, Apex Court in the case of Lavesh and Pradeep Sharma (supra) impliedly referred the factor (iii) of Section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C. and its different fall outs because according to Apex Court, a person who is proclaimed offender under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. loses the sheen on merits to seek anticipatory bail. His application deserves dismissal on merits if he is declared as absconder under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. but application is certainly maintainable. Even otherwise, because the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. are transient/interim/provisional in nature and subject to proceedings under Section 84 (at the instance of any person other then proclaimed offender having interest in the attach property), Section 85 (at the instance of proclaimed offender himself) and Section 86 [Appeal against the order (under Section 85 rejecting application for restoration of attach property]. Even Section 84 (4) of Cr.P.C. gives power to the objector to institute a suit to establish the right which he claims in respect of property in dispute. Therefore, all these provisions render the proceedings under Section 82/83 of Cr.P.C. transient or intermediary and on the basis of transient provision, valuable right of personal liberty of an individual at least to seek anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed. Therefore, on this count also, application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable even if a person has been declared as proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Cr.P.C.(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (19 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
33. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the police authority has declared award or prepared Farari Panchnama even then anticipatory bail application is maintainable, however, it is to be seen on merits that whether that application deserves to be considered and allowed as per the factors enumerated in Section 438 of Cr.P.C. itself and if any of those factors are not satisfied then the Court certainly has discretion to reject it. The said discretion has been given by Constitutional Bench decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. (supra)."
14. After considering the aforesaid law position settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court, various High Courts including Rajasthan High Court and so also the fact that the only allegations which have been found to be proved by the Investigating Agency are punishable under sections 420 and 120B IPC and moreover the facts born out from the record are that the petitioner has already participated in the investigation and has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer, the objections raised by the counsel appearing for the complainant in regard to the maintainability of this anticipatory bail application is not sustainable and this Court can safely hold that the present anticipatory bail application cannot be thrown out without making consideration on merit.
15. As regards the merit of the anticipatory bail application on facts and law is concerned, Senior Counsel (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:57 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (20 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] appearing for the petitioner submitted that the FIR No. 199/2010 has been registered on a complaint by the complainant before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur City, Jaipur.
16. The gist of the allegations made in the complaint is that co-accused Govind Johari (now dead), Ghasi Lal Choudhary (now dead), who were the Directors of the Company in order to misappropriate the property of the company, prepared forged documents and got opened the bank account in the Bank of India, Johari Bajar Branch with the collusion of the Officers of the Bank and the said Bank account was not closed even after complaints to the Bank by the complainant. It is further alleged that on 15.06.2009 an amount of Rs.1 Crore has been credited in the account of the Company from the bank account of the petitioner and on the very same day the aforesaid amount was transferred to another Bank account and then back to the account of the petitioner. Likewise, on 3.10.2009 Rs. 18 lakhs were also deposited in one of the account of the Company and were transferred to the account of the petitioner again. It has been alleged that the aforesaid amount is an undisclosed amount and the source of said amount may be any illegal means and the Bank Officers have cooperated the accused in opening the Bank account and aforesaid transactions. (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (21 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
17. Senior Counsel further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the amount which has been transferred from his account to the account of the Company and then returned back in his account, is not the money earned from any illegal means and transferring of amount from one account to another account cannot be an offence punishable under the law. Senior Counsel further submitted that the accused petitioner on 27th Day of September 2005 has given a Power of Attorney to his father (now dead) so as to authorize him for business dealings and other transactions on his behalf. The terms and conditions of the Power of Attorney also deal with the power so as to operate the Bank account, property, land, Fixed Deposit and to go Abroad for education.
18. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the investigation of the present case was conducted by 13 Officers in different periods, whereas as per the Circulars of the State Government itself, the investigation of a criminal case cannot be transferred and assigned to Officers beyond the limit of three Officers. Senior Counsel also submitted that some of the Officers after conclusion of the investigation proposed the Final Negative Reports and submitted the same before the Competent Court but because of the high handedness of the complainant, re-investigation was made in the matter. But after about 14 years the police (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (22 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] has submitted the charge-sheet against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC.
19. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that even during this intervening period the talks of compromise continued in between both the parties for about one year but because of certain stringent conditions suggested by the complainant, the compromise could not be concluded. Senior Counsel also submitted that during this period of 14 years the petitioner went Abroad multiple times and came back to India. As per the status report of the investigation, the petitioner has joined the interrogation before the Investigating Officer and the interrogation note is also available in the case record. It has also been submitted that the dispute in regard to the issues pertaining to the Directors of the Company is pending before the National Company Law Tribunal on behest of both the parties. Senior Counsel also submitted that during the interrogation the petitioner had submitted all the documents available with him to the Investigating Officer and in such circumstances the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is unwarranted. Senior Counsel also submitted that the petitioner is always ready to cooperate with the investigation, and therefore, he may be given the benefit of anticipatory bail. (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (23 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
20. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as Mr. Hemant Nahta, learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the undisclosed money has been transferred from the account of the petitioner to the account operated in the name of the Company by the other co-accused so as to misappropriate the property of the Company. It is further submitted that the accused petitioner is absconding and is not traceable even after searches are being made by the Police. Counsel appearing for the complainant has also submitted that the accused petitioner is having high hands with the Senior Police Officers as well as some Constitutional dignitaries in the State of Rajasthan and has a serious influence in the investigation of the case from the very beginning.
The counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments admitted the fact that sometime ago talks of negotiation also continued for about one year between the parties.
21. Considered the submissions advanced by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant and perused the relevant papers.
22. The case was registered on a complaint filed by the complainant in the year 2010 and the investigation continued (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (24 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] for about 14 years and finally the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner under section 299 CrPC saying that the petitioner is not traceable even after searches.
23. From the status report dated 06.07.2023 enclosed with the bail application, this Court finds that as many as 13 Officers were deputed so as to make the investigation in different period breaks. The number of Investigating Officers changing time to time itself shows some type of hanky-panky which may be from either side. At one point of time the Investigating Officer after concluding the investigation submitted the Final Negative Report No.83/2010 dated 29.05.2010 before the Competent Court on 08.07.2010 holding that the case has been registered falsely in confusion / misunderstanding. After filing of the Final Negative report, the re-investigation was started under the order dated 23.09.2010 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur City (North) after receiving back the file from the Court. The investigation thereafter continued after changing of numerous Investigating Officers (in total 13 Investigating Officers) and in the year 2023 the Investigating Officer proposed for Supplementary Final Negative Report observing that it is a matter of civil nature. However, in-stead of filing the Supplementary Final Negative Report, the investigation was again assigned to other Officer. (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (25 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
24. As per the Status Report dated 02.07.2024 submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor which has already been taken on record, it is disclosed that only offences under sections 420 and 120B IPC have been found to be proved against the petitioner. The conclusion of the investigation as per the status report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor is that the source of amount which has been transferred from one account to other is suspicious. Even the investigation is not of conclusive stand that the amount was from some illegal source. Only on account of some suspicious source one cannot be put behind the Bars. The relevant part of the status report as regards the investigation is quoted as under:-
(Page No.17 of status report) "इस प्रकरकार प्रकरण ण हरकाहाजरका मज अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान, बयारकान परिरवारकादी,, गवारकाण हरकान, पूछतरकाछ आरोपीगण, ववाभिनन परिरवारकादी, पतरकावाल, मज मं मौहाजूदी दीस्तरकावाेहाजी सरकाकयारकायारकालया बयारकान परिरवारकादी,, गवारकाण हरकान थरका दवारकाररका ककयाे गयाे अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान से परकायारका गयारका ण है कक शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाणयायणयों एवा अनुसं पूवार्व अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान अधुसंधकरकारिरयायणयों ने ककमपनी मज ण ह, करकाम करने वारकाले भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क को इस्तेमरकाल करके एक शीवादरकासी लरकालरका रचकर परिरवारकार की ववाभिनन ककमपनीहाज की बण हेमूलया सकमप्पतमतयायणयों यों पलयों प्लॉट नकमबर सी- पथ्वाीररकाहाज मरकागर्व, सी-स्कीम, हाजयापरे वा हण हनदी ण होटल को ण हड़पने की नीयात से ककमपनी के बोरर्व के समरकानरकानतर (Parallel) दीस ू ररका बोरर्व फहाजर्जी गह गठित कर भलयारका और ककमप्पननयायणयों की सकमप्पतमत (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (26 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] करका कबहाजरका गोववानदी मरकानररकायाण हाजीण हर, के पेत ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन उफर्व ररकामहाजी हाजं मौण हर, के ण हक मज करकानूनन ण हस्त्पनतरिरत ण होने के तथ्या को भमथ्यारका रूप से अ्पतस्तमवा मज लरकाने के भलए हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.04.2005 को एक फहाजर्जी भमहट अनुसंग करका आयाोहाजन ककमपनी की सकमप्पतमत यों पलयों प्लॉट नकमबर सी-7, पथ्वाीररकाहाज रोर, हाजयापरे पर हदीखारकाकर आरोपी घारकासी लरकाल के ण हस्तरकाक्षरयणयों से फहाजर्जी रिरहाजोलयाूशन परकास करके शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, को ककमपनी करका चैयारमैन कम एम०री० ्पननया ेकत ककयारका तथरका भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क सहण हत ककमपनी मज नयाे अ्पनतरिरकत ररकायारेकटर ककमपनी के मैमोरेणरम ऑफ एसोभसएशन करका उलल अनुसंघान कर ्पननयाक े त करनरका हदीखालरकाने के भमथ्यारका दीस्तरकावाेहाज कूटरधचत कर हदीयाे।
आरोपीगणयणयों दवारकाररका बनरकायाे गयाे उकत तथरकाकधथत नयाे अ्पनतरिरकत ररकायारेकटरयणयों मज से ररकायारेकटर शी कमल ककशोर भमशरका. शी कैलरकाश अग्रवारकाल एवा अनुसं शी सं मौरि परकार,क मज दीं मौररकानज अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान बतरकायारका ण है कक हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.04.2005 को कोई भमहट अनुसंग आयाो्पतहाजत नण ह, अनुसं की गई, वाे ककमपनी मज ररकायारेकटर नण ह, अनुसं ण है, उनकरका ककमपनी से कोई लेनरका-दीेनरका नण ह, अनुसं ण है, उनको कब ररकायारेकटर बनरका हदीयारका, पतरका ण ह, नण ह, अनुसं ण है। आहदी।
अपने बयारकानयणयों के समथर्वन मज प्ररकाथर्वनरका-पत/शपथ-पत आहदी हदीयाे ण है तथरका चं मौथे हदीखारकायाे गयाे ररकायारेकटर शी भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क नज िी प्रकरण के पूवार्व अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान अधुसंधकरकारिरयायणयों के समक्ष हदीनरका अनुसंक 20.03.2008 को स्वाया अनुसं के ण हस्तरकाक्षरशदी े रका एक प्ररकाथर्वनरका-पत एवा अनुसं हदीनरका अनुसंक 17.10.2008 को तफतीश पर बतरकायारका ण है कक "उसे ररकायारेकटर बनरकानज बरकाबत ब उससे कोई सण हम्पनत नण ह, अनुसं ल, गई. इस बरकाबत ब नरका तो कोई भमहट अनुसंग ण हेई, नरका ण ह, उसने उकत भमहट अनुसंग मज िरकाग भलयारका। उसनज , हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व प्ररका०भल० ककमपनी के बीको के (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (27 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] चैकयणयों पर गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, के कण हनज पर सरकाईन ककयाे। उकत ककमपनी के इ्पतकवाट, शेयार स्थरकानरकानतरण के करकागहाजयणयों पर उससे गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, नज कब सरकाईन करवारका भलयारका उसे मरकालूम नण ह, अनुसं ण है।"
इस प्रकरकार आरोपीगणयणयों ने केवाल फहाजर्जी तर,के से हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.04.2005 को ककमपनी की भमहट अनुसंग करका आयाोहाजन ककयारका हाजरकानरका हदीखारकायारका ण है। इसके सरकाथ ण ह, याण ह िी उललेखानीया ण है कक आरोपी शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, मज अपनज घार के चं मौकीदीरकार शी कमल ककशोर भमशरका, घार के दीुसंध ू वारकाले शी ररकामनरकाररकायाण गेहाजर्वर, ककमपनी मज सैलेर, पर करकाम करनज वारकाले शी भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क वा उसके पत े सं मौरि परकार,क, अपने दीोस्त शी कैलरकाश अग्रवारकाल, अपनी बहण हन कनक प्रिरका कड़ेल, बण हनोई शी रववानविन्द्र करेल आहदी सिी को ककमपनी मज अ्पनतरिरकत ररकायारेकटर बनरका हदीयारका हाजबकक उकत तथरकाकधथत रमी ररकायारेकटरयणयों मज से कोई िी ककमपनी करका शेयार ण होलरर नण ह, अनुसं थरका। इसी के उमतरोतर गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, वा शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर, दीोनयणयों ण ह, सिी तथ्यायणयों वा ्पननयामयणयों के हाजरकानकरकार ण होते ण हेए िी ककमपनी के खारकातयणयों मज ण हेरफेर कर ककमपनी को नेकसरकान पण हेुचरकानज के भलए हाजरकानबूझकर ककमपनी के अनया ्पननदीेशकयणयों के जरकान मज लरकायाे ये बबनरका हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.05.2005 को एक फहाजर्जी रिरहाजोलयाूशन परकास करके ककमपनी हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व मज शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर,, शी भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क वा शी रववानविन्द्र करेल को ककमपनी के खारकातयणयों के स अनुसंचरकालन सब अनुसंुसंधी समस्त अधुसंधकरकार प्रदीरकान कर हदीयाे और हदीनरका अनुसंक 20.05.2005 को इस स अनुसंब अनुसंुसंधी फरकामर्व गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, ने स्वाया अनुसं के ण हस्तरकाक्षर कर बीक मज हाजमरका करवारका हदीयारका। उस रिरहाजोलयाूशन एवा अनुसं फरकामर्व के आुसंधरकार पर बीक दवारकाररका ककमपनी के खारकाते (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (28 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] मज अपरेशन कर हदीयारका गयारका और आरोपी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, वा शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर, ने अपने फरकायादीे के भलए भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क वा रववानविन्द्र करेल से ककमपनी के खारकाते के चैक हाजरकार, करवारकायाे हाजबकक हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.04. 2005 को नयाे ररकायारेकटर बनरकायाे हाजरकानज की सच ू नरका ण ह, आर०ओ०सी० को हदीनरका अनुसंक 10.05.2005 को दी, गई थी, तो इससे पूवार्व ण ह, हदीनरका अनुसंक 07.05.2005 को रिरहाजोलयाूशन के आुसंधरकार पर ककमपनी के खारकाते के स अनुसंचरकालन *स अनुसंब अनुसंुसंधी अधुसंधकरकार भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क वा रववानविन्द्र करेल को ककस प्रकरकार हदीयाे हाजरका सकते थे , लेककन आरोपीगणयणयों दवारकाररका उकत करकायार्ववारकाण ह, हाजरकानबझ ू कर ककमपनी को ण हरका्पनन पण हेुचरकाने के भलए की गई थी। इसी प्रकरकार आरोपीगणयणयों ने ककमपनी मण हरकाररकाहाजरका ग अनुसंगरकाभस अनुसंण ह ण होटलस प्ररका०भल० के तमसमया के अनया ररकायारेकटरयणयों के जरकान मज लरकायाे ये बबनरका उकत ककमपनी करका चरकालू खारकातरका बीक ऑफ इ्पतणरयारका मज फहाजर्जी वा गेपचेप तर,के से खाेलवारकानज के भलए हदीनरका अनुसंक 20.05.2005 को एक अनया फहाजर्जी रिरहाजोलयाूशन परकास करके हदीनरका अनुसंक 23.05. 2005 को शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर,, शी भसदरकाथर्व परकार,क वा शी रववानविन्द्र करेल दवारकाररका फरकामर्व िर कर ककमपनी करका खारकातरका खाेलवारका भलयारका और उकत खारकाते मज लेन-दीेन चरकालू कर हदीयारका और ककमपनी के अनया ्पननदीेशकयणयों करका ककमपनी के सरकाथ ुसंधोखारकाुसंधड़ी करके ककमपनी के खारकाते के चैक हाजरकार, कर हदीयाे गयाे। इसी प्रकरकार ककमपनी की ररकाशी को ण हड़पनज , ककमपनी वा ककमपनी के अनया ्पननदीेशकयणयों के सरकाथ ुसंधोखारकाुसंधड़ी करनज के भलए हदीनरका अनुसंक 15.06.2009 को आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन के नई हदीलल, ्पतस्थत बचत बीक खारकाते से एक करोर दीस ण हहाजरकार रूपयाे ककमपनी मण हरकाररकाहाजरका ग अनुसंगरकाभस अनुसंण ह के चरकालू खारकाते मज टरका अनुसंसफर ककयाे गयाे, इसी हदीनरका अनुसंक को (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (29 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] उकत ुसंधन ररकाभश मज से एक करोड़ रूपयाे ककमपनी मण हरकाररकाहाजरका ग अनुसंगरकाभस अनुसंण ह के खारकाते से ककमपनी हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व के चरकालू खारकाते मज टरका अनुसंसफर ककयाे गयाे, इसी हदीनरका अनुसंक को उकत ुसंधनररकाभश एक करोर रूपयाे ककमपनी हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व के चरकालू खारकाते से आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, के हाजयापरे ्पतस्थत बचत बीक खारकाते मज टरका अनुसंसफर कर दी, गई। इसी प्रकरकार हदीनरका अनुसंक 03.10.2009 को ककमपनी हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व के खारकाते मज चैक कल,यारिर अनुसंग से 18 लरकाखा रूपयाे प्ररकायों पत ण हेए, उकत ुसंधनररकाभश 18 लरकाखा रूपयाे को हदीनरका अनुसंक 05.10.2009 को ककमपनी हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलसर्व के खारकाते से ककमपनी मण हरकाररकाहाजरका ग अनुसंगरकाभस अनुसंण ह के खारकाते मज टरका अनुसंसफर कर हदीयारका गयारका एवा अनुसं इसी हदीनरका अनुसंक 05.10.2009 को उकत ुसंधनररकाभश मज से 17 लरकाखा रूपयाे आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, के हाजयापेर ्पतस्थत बीक खारकाते मज टरका अनुसंसफर कर हदीयारका गयारका, उकत ुसंधनररकाभश को हदीनरका अनुसंक 14.10.2009 को आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, "ने सेलफ चैक से ववाडरका कर भलयारका। इस प्रकरकार आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, ने ककमपनी के सरकाथ घाोखारकाुसंधड़ी • करनज के भलए एक मनी टेल चरकालू ककयारका, ्पतहाजससे एक बड़ी ुसंधनररकाभश से एक ककमपनी से दीस ू र, ककमपनी करका लोन चेकरकानरका हदीखारकाकर वारकापस वाण ह, पैसरका स्वाया अनुसं ने प्ररकायों पत कर भलयारका और ककमपनी मज हाजरिरयाे चैक ्पतकलयारिर अनुसंग आयारका ण हेआ पैसरका िी स्वाया अनुसं नज प्ररकायों पत कर भलयारका। हाजब आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन को उकत एक करोड़ रूपयाे स्वाया अनुसं के हाजयापरे ्पतस्थत खारकाते मज ण ह, टरका अनुसंसफर करने थे तो वाण ह सीुसंधरका िी टरकास अनुसंफर कर सकतरका थरका, लेककन उसनज ऐसरका नण ह, अनुसं करके ककमपनी के खारकातो करका उपयाोग ककयारका, हाजब दीोनयणयों ककमप्पननयायणयों के खारकातो करका स अनुसंचरकालन अधुसंधकरकार आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन को प्ररकायों पत नण ह, अनुसं थरका तो उसके दवारकाररका टरका अनुसंसफर की (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (30 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] गई ररकाभश ककरकार्व • एक ककमपनी से दीस ू र, ककमपनी मज वा दीस ू र, ककमपनी से वारकापस ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन के खारकाते मज पण हेुचरकानज के भलए ककसी अनया आरोपी दवारकाररका मदीदी अवाशया की गई ण है। इसके सरकाथ ण ह, आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन के खारकाते से टरका अनुसंसफर ण हेई उकत बड़ी ुसंधनररकाभश 1 करोड़ 10 ण हहाजरकार रूपयाे के प्ररका्पतयों पत स्तोत के स अनुसंब अनुसंुसंध मज आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन के वपतरका शी गोववानविन्द्र नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, दवारकाररका के छ नण ह, अनुसं बतरकायारका गयारका ण है, उकत ुसंधनररकाभश करका स्तोत स अनुसंदीेण हरकास्पदी ण है।"
25. Any accused is required to be arrested so as to conduct proper investigation into the allegations by putting questions to him in his interrogation and to recover the material so as to come to the final conclusion into the allegations. In the present case the accused petitioner was called by the Investigating Officer and he appeared before the Investigating Officer for interrogation on various occasions. The Investigating Officer interrogated the accused petitioner and also collected the relevant documents from him.
As per the Status Report in view of the Look Out Circular, the accused while returning from the Abroad was detained at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 23.08.2023 by the Immigration Department for which an information was sent to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (North). On such information the SHO, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur brought the accused petitioner to Jaipur, interrogated him and let him free, which shows that there (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (31 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] was no concrete evidence so as to find the allegations proved against him.
26. On 22.02.2024 also on calling by the Investigating Officer, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and was interrogated and was asked 21 questions and the interrogation note was taken on record. All the relevant documents available with the accused petitioner were also submitted to the Investigating Officer and were also taken on record. The relevant parts of the Status Report submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor as referred on Page Nos. 18, 19, 21 and 28 are quoted as under:-
"प्रकरण ण हरकाहाजरका मज आरोपी शी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, को दीस्तयारकाब कर स अनुसंब अनुसंधुसंधत से तफतीश की हाजरकाकर कबहाजे से ववावारकाहदीत मूल ल,हाजरीर वा उसके परकास मं मौहाजूदी ककमपनी की भमहट अनुसंगो, ककमपनी के बीक खारकातो, उसकी आयाकर ववावारण आहदी से स अनुसंब अनुसंधुसंधत मूल दीस्तरकावाेहाजरकात ब हाजयों पत ककयाे हाजरकाकर चरकालरकान पेश नयारकायारकालया ककयाे हाजरकाने तथरका अधग्रम करकानन ू ी करकायार्ववारकाण ह, ण हेते पतरकावाल, पभे लस थरकानरका मरकाणकचं मौक, उमतर को प्रेव्र हरत की गयाी। (Page No.18 of status report) तमपशचरकात हदीनरका अनुसंक 31.08.23 को ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, को लेक आऊट नोहटस के अनेक्रम मज इ अनुसंहदीररका गरका अनुसंुसंधी अनतररकार्व्राषट,या एयारपोटर्व हदीलल, से इभमग्रेशन ववािरकाग दवारकाररका ा डरटेन ककयारका गयारका वा सच ू नरका शीमरकान पभे लस उपरकायाक े त हाजयापरे उमतर को प्रेव्र हरत की गयाी। ्पतहाजस पर हदीनरका अनुसंक 01.09.23 को थरकानरकाधुसंधकरकार, मरकाणक चं मौक ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, को इ अनुसंहदीररका गरका अनुसंुसंधी अनतररकार्व्राषट,या एयारपोटर्व हदीलल, इभमग्रेशन ववािरकाग (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (32 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] से ण हमररकाण ह लेकर थरकानरका आयाे वा आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, से पूछतरकाछ की हाजरकाकर पेन अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान मज उप्पतस्थत ण होने की हण हदीरकायात की गयाी।(Page No.19 of status report) हदीनरका अनुसंक 20.02.2024 को प्रकरण ण हरकाहाजरका मज आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, मन अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान अधुसंधकरकार, के करकायारकार्वलया ण हरकाहाजरका मज उप्पतस्थत ण हेआ। ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, से पूछतरकाछ की हाजरकाकर पथक से पूछतरकाछ नोट (प्रशन स अनुसंखयारका 01 से 21 तक) तैयारकार ककयारका हाजरकाकर, शरकाभमल पतरकावाल, ककयारका गयारका। आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, दवारकाररका हदीनरका अनुसंक
27.09.2005 को अपने वपतरका शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, के पक्ष मज ्पनन्राषपरकाहदीत परकावार ऑफ आटोनर्जी की फोटयणयोंप्र्पनत, इभमग्रेशन स्टरकाकमप की फोटोप्र्पनत, आयाकर रिरटनर्व वा्र हरर्व 2009-10 की फोटोप्र्पनत, प अनुसंचनरकामरका फोटोप्र्पनत, मैससर्व कक अनुसंग ऑफ जवाैलस के ररकाहाजस्थरकान वारकाणणजया कर अधुसंध्पननयाम 1994 के अनतगर्वत प अनुसंहाजीकत, हाजी०एस०ट,० प अनुसंहाजीकरण करवारकाने की फोटोप्र्पनत, हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलस प्ररका० भल० ्पननदीेशक घारकासीलरकाल चं मौुसंधर, के ण हस्तरकाक्षरयाक े त हदीनरका अनुसंक 11.07.2007 को ्पननदीेशक मणरल दवारकाररका प्रस्तरकावा की फोटोप्र्पनत आहदी दीस्तरकावाेहाज प्रस्तेत ककयाे ण है। आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, करका पूछतरकाछ नोट मया उपरोकत फोटोप्र्पनत दीस्तरकावाेहाजो के शरकाभमल पतरकावाल, ककयारका गयारका। दीं मौररकाने पछ ू तरकाछ आरोपी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, से उपरोकत असल दीस्तरकावाेहाजो के बरकारे मज पछ ू ने पर बतरकायारका कक उपरोकत सिी दीस्तरकावाेहाज ववाभिनन नयारका्पनयाक वारकादी एवा अनुसं ककमपनी लयों प्लॉ हटबयाूनल मज चल रण हे वारकादी मज हाजमरका करवारकायाे गयाे ण है, इस करकारण पेश नण ह, अनुसं ककयाे हाजरका सकते ण है। (Page No.21 of status report) (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (33 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] इस प्रकरकार आरोपीगण शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर,,, शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर, वा भसदरकाथर्व, परकार,क के ववारूद अपररकाुसंध ुसंधरकाररका 420,409,467, 468,471,120 बी िरका०दी०स० करका अपररकाुसंध बखाूबी प्रमरकाणणत ण है। उकत आरोपीगणयणयों मज से आरोपी शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, की ममयाे हदीनरका अनुसंक 09.09.2021 वा आरोपी शी घारकासी लरकाल चं मौुसंधर, की ममयाे हदीनरका अनुसंक 18.11.2016 को ण हो चेकी ण है। अनया आरोपी शी ण ह्र हरर्ववाुसंधर्वन हाजं मौण हर, पेत शी गोववानदी नरकाररकायाण हाजं मौण हर, के ववारूद अपररकाुसंध ुसंधरकाररका_420, 120 बी िरका०दी०स० करका अपररकाुसंध बखाब ू ी प्रमरकाणणत ण है।" (Page No.28 of status report)
27. This Court has also gone through the Final Report No.83/2010 dated 29.05.2010, the copy of which has been attached with the bail application. In the aforesaid Final Report after investigation it was concluded by the Investigating Officer as under:-
"आहदी रिरपोटर्व पर मेकदीमरका 199/10 ुसंधरकाररका 420,467,468,471,120B IPC मज करकायाम कर अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान प्ररकारकमि ककयारका गयारका। दीं मौररकाने अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान बयारकानरकात मेस्तगीस लेखा ककयाे गयाे। बीक आफ इ्पतणरयारका शरकाखारका हाजं मौण हर, बरकाहाजरकार से प्रकरण मज अहदी्पनत बीक खारकारयणयों करका रिरकरकारर्व प्ररकायों पत ककयारका हाजरकाकर शरकामील पतरकावाल, ककयारका गयारका। प्रकरण मज कधथत आरोपी से तफतीश मज गई।
मेकटरकाररका ण हरकाहाजरका मज अब तक की तफतीश, बयारकानरकात गवारकाण हरकान या पतरकावाल, पर उपलबुसंध सरकाकयायणयों से ्पननकमन तथ्या सरकामने आयाे ण ही।(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (34 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
1. प्रकरण की प्रथम सूचनरका के पैररका स अनुसंखयारका 1 मज वया्पतकत ववाशे्र हर के वया्पतकतगत हाजीवान के सकमबनुसंध मज हटयों पपणी ण ही हाजो अनेस अनुसंुसंधरकान के याोग्या नण ह, अनुसं ण है। पेभलस थरकानरका कोतवारकाल, हाजयापेर शण हर मज दीहाजर्व प्रकरण स अनुसंखयारका 524/98 करका ्पननस्तरकारण ण हो चेकरका ण है अत मक े दीमरका ण हरकाहाजरका मज उकत अभियाोग के सकमबनुसंध मज अनस े अनुसंुसंधरकान अपेअपेकक्षत नण ह, अनुसं ण है।
2. प्रकरण की प्रथम सूचनरका के पैररका स अनुसंखयारका 2 मज याण ह तथ्या अ अनुसंककत ण है कक परिरवारकादी, ककमपनी ने गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, को ककमपनी के ्पननदीेशक पदी से वा्र हरर्व 2005 मज ण हटरका हदीयारका थरका मगर गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, ने कनपनी की प्रोपहटर्वहाज खाेदी के नरकाम करने के भलए बीक आफ इ्पतणरयारका मज ककमपनी के खारकाते मज फहाजर्जी करकागहाजरकात पेश ककयाे । इस सकमबनुसंध मज तथ्या याण ह ण है कक वा्र हरर्व 2005 मज गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, वा उनके िरकाईयायणयों के नरकाते आपसी ववावारकादी चलते दीोनो पक्षयणयों ने ककमपनी ण है मरकाभलकरकानरका ण हक के भलयाे एक दीस ू रे पर आरोप प्रमयारकारोप लगरकायाे।
इस सकमवानुसंध मज अभियाोग स अनुसंखयारका 254/05 दीहाजर्व ण हेआ हाजो हाजैर तफतीश ण है। इस अभियाोग मज मण हेनविन्द्र केमरकार हाजं मौण हर,, गोपरकाल लरकाल हाजं मौण हर, वागैररकाण ह पर फहाजर्जी दीस्तरकावाेहाजरकात बनरकाकर गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर, को ररकायारेकटर पदी से ण हटरकाने करका आरोप ण है हाजब तक ररकायारेकटर के पदी की वाैुसंधतरका करका ्पननुसंधरकार्वरण ककमपनी लरका बोरर्व से नण ह, अनुसं ण हो हाजरकातरका तब तक बीक खारकातयणयों मज पेश ककयाे गयाे रिरहाजोलयाश े न लेटर पैर वा अधुसंधकरकार पत वागैररकाण ह को फहाजर्जी कररकार हदीयारका हाजरकानरका सकमिवा नण ह, अनुसं ण है कयायणयों कक याण ह ककमपनी लयों प्लॉ बोरर्व के क्षेतरकाधुसंधकरकार के अनतगर्वत आतरका ण है।(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:29878] (35 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
3. प्रकरण की प्रथम सूचनरका के पैररका स अनुसंखयारका 3 मज हाजं मौण हर, जवाैलस करका खारकातरका स अनुसंखयारका 660520100001719 हदीनरका अनुसंक 3.1.2000 को खाोलरका गयारका थरका हाजो गोववानदी हाजं मौण हर,, मण हेनविन्द्र हाजं मौण हर,, सीतरका दीेवाी हाजं मौण हर,, अनवे प्रयारका हाजं मौण हर, के मरकाधयाम से ककमपनी करका खारकातरका खाल े वारकायारका गयारका थरका उस समया ररकायारेकटर पदी के ररकागनुसंध मज कोई ववावारकादी नण ह, अनुसं नरका और उकत सिी चरकारयणयों ररकायारेकटरयणयों की सण हम्पनत से खारकातरका खाोलरका गयारका थरका हाजण हरका अनुसं तक बीक अधुसंधकरकारिरयायणयों दवारकाररका याण ह खारकातरका यानदी नण ह, अनुसं करने की भशकरकायात ण है इस सकमयानुसंध मज बीक दवारकाररका मस् े तगीररका के अधुसंधवाकतरका ण हेमनत नरकाण हटरका के ल,गल नोहटस के हाजवारकाब मज बीक के अधुसंधवाकतरका शी शयारकाम वयारकास इस खारकातरका के प्र्पनत उमतर मज अवागत कररकाया ण है कक " upon examining facts and documents of the case it is observed that disputes between parties are pending before various authorities including company law board. It would be pertinent to mention that my client has opened referred accounts observing norms and rules applicable and operation in accounts have allowed your client Intends to stop my client in allowing operation in accounts, he is per banking law, practice and regulations. In case required to obtain directions form appropriate court / forum."
इससे स्प्राषट ण है कक बीक खारकातयणयों करका स अनुसंचरकालन बीक दवारकाररका ्पननुसंधरकार्वरिरत ववािरकागीया ्पननयामयणयों, मरकानदीणरयणयों के अनरु े प ककयारका हाजरका रण हरका ण है।"
28. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1106/2006, Maharaja Ganga Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Commissioner of Police in compliance of the order dated 30.01.2024 submitted his explanation in regard to the (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (36 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] inordinate delay in concluding the investigation of the case registered against the present petitioner. The Commissioner of Police in para 7 of the said explanation stated that the interrogation of the accused petitioner was done in Case No.199/2010.
29. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner citing judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of K. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. & other connected criminal appeals, reported in (1998) 5 SCC 223, submitted that once after conclusion of the investigation Final Report has been submitted, re- investigation in that matter is not permissible under the law. Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has referred para Nos. 17, 18 and 19, which are quoted as under:-
"17. In refuting the above contentions, Mr Shanti Bhushan, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Kerala along with its Advocate General, submitted that the Act only enables CBI to investigate into offences specified as contemplated by Section 3, but does not in any way take away the right of the State Police to investigate into those offences. He pointed out that the offences for which notifications have been issued under Section 3 include offences under Sections 380 and 411 IPC and submitted that it would be absurd to suggest that the State Police was denuded of its powers to investigate into those offences in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code merely because the CBI (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (37 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] has been empowered to investigate into those offences. In elaborating this contention he submitted that the power to investigate a cognizable case is conferred on the officer in charge of a police station under Section 156(1) of the Code (appearing in Chapter XII) and in exercise thereof he can investigate any such case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. He drew our attention to Chapter XIII (which relates to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts in inquiries and trials) of the Code and argued that Sections 177 to 184 appearing therein would show that more than one court have territorial jurisdiction to inquire into and try the same offence. By way of illustration he made a particular reference to Section 183 to contend that if a murder was committed in a train all the courts, having territorial jurisdiction in the areas through which the train was passing, would be competent to try the offence. That, according to him, necessarily meant that each one of the officers in charge of the police stations through which the train passed would be competent to investigate the offence of murder in view of the plain language of Section 156(1) of the Code and none of them could claim any exclusive jurisdiction to investigate. Of course, he added, if on the filing of charge sheets on completion of their respective investigations, courts in different States took cognizance of that offence the High Court would have to decide under Section 186 of the Code as to which of those courts (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (38 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] would try the offence. He contended that Section 186 of the Code clearly demonstrates that while the law does not contemplate parallel trials for the same offence in different courts it does clearly envisage parallel or simultaneous investigations of the same offence by police officials of different States. He reiterated that since the law does not prohibit simultaneous investigation by different investigating agencies into the same offence if each one of them has been conferred powers of investigation, the issuance of an order under Section 5(1) of the Act along with the consent of the State Government under Section 6 thereof would only mean that the officers of the CBI can also investigate into that offence. To buttress his contention he drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Admn. In that case the following question came up for consideration (as formulated by this Court in para 6 of the judgment:
"6. The short but important question with far-
reaching effect, if the appellant's contention were to prevail, requiring our decision is, whether with the setting up of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, the Anti Corruption Branch of the Delhi Police had been completely deprived of its power to investigate into the offences like the present or whether both the DSPE and the Anti-
Corruption Branch had power to investigate, it being a matter of internal administrative arrangement for the appropriate authorities to regulate the assignment of investigation of (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (39 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] cases according to the exigencies of the situation."
18. After referring to the scheme of the Act and its different provisions the Court answered the same as under:
"The scheme of this Act does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction, powers and competence to investigate into offences under any other competent law. As a general rule, it would require clear and express language to effectively exclude as a matter of law the power of investigation of all the offences mentioned in this notification from the jurisdiction and competence of the regular police authorities conferred on them by CrPC and other laws and to vest this power exclusively in the DSPE. The DSPE Act seems to be only permissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the DSPE also to investigate into the offences specified as contemplated by Section 3 without impairing any other law empowering the regular police authorities to investigate offences."
19. On the basis of the law so laid down, the last submission of Mr Shanti Bhushan on this point was that the power of CBI to investigate into the offences in question was not exclusive but concurrent with the State Police. In distinguishing the case of Kazi Lhendup Dorji Mr Shanti Bhushan submitted that that was a case where the consent (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (40 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] was sought to be withdrawn at a stage when the investigation was in progress, but in the instant case, as the CBI had already completed the investigation and submitted its report in final form the State Government was fully justified in withdrawing the consent for making a proper investigation into the offence in question."
30. In the present case, after conclusion of the investigation, Final Negative Report was submitted on 08.07.2010 and again in the year 2023 Supplementary Final Negative Report was proposed. Even then the investigation was continued and naturally the re-investigation must be at behest of the complainant.
31. Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also submitted that the investigation in the matter has been assigned to about 13 different Officers, even though at one point of time the Final Negative Report was submitted and by another Investigating Officer the Supplementary Final Negative Report was proposed. Senior Counsel submitted that the Government of Rajasthan has issued a Circular dated 06.01.2019 clarifying the earlier Circulars in regard to change in the investigation of a criminal case and by that Circular the numbers of Investigating Officers have been restricted to three. In support of aforesaid submissions, Senior Counsel has referred the case of Gagandeep Singh Vs. State & Ors., (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No.3711/2020) (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (41 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] decided on 5.08.2021 decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, Principal Seat at Jodhpur. Senior Counsel has also referred the case of Ram Pratap Debana Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.573/2024) & Other connected petitions, decided on 07.02.2024 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court wherein the change of investigation to various branches was under challenge and the Court has stayed the further investigation.
32. This Court is also of the view that after conclusion of the investigation, the Final Negative Report has been submitted and further again a Supplementary Final Negative Report was proposed by the another Investigating Officer, then continuing the investigation by another Investigating Officer thereafter without there being any cogent ground and without order or permission of the Court, cannot be said to be justified in any manner.
33. In the case of Siddharth vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2022) 1 SCC 676 the Hon'ble Apex Court in para Nos. 10 and 12 has observed as under:-
"10. We may note that personal liberty is an important aspect of our constitutional mandate.
The occasion to arrest an accused during investigation arises when custodial investigation becomes necessary or it is a heinous crime or where there is a possibility of influencing the (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (42 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] witnesses or accused may abscond. Merely because an arrest can be made because it is lawful does not mandate that arrest must be made. A distinction must be made between the existence of the power to arrest and the justification for exercise of it5. If arrest is made routine, it can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. If the investigating officer has no reason to believe that the accused will abscond or disobey summons and has, in fact, throughout cooperated with the investigation we fail to appreciate why there should be a compulsion on the officer to arrest the accused.
12. In the present case when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the charge-sheet is taken on record. We may note that the learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court."
34. In the present case also the petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has been interrogated and interrogation note is also on record. As per the Status Report also the accused petitioner has been interrogated on various occasions by different Investigating Officers and he has already handed over the relevant (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (43 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] documents available with him to them. Normally an accused person is arrested and is interrogated in regard to the allegations levelled against him/her and to make recovery of any substantial material or article, which is required for conclusive evidence so as to prove the offence. In the present case also, since the petitioner has already been interrogated and whatever the documents were available with him, have already been handed over to the Investigating Officer. In such circumstances, further custodial interrogation is not required. Merely putting a person behind the bars so as to satisfy the wishes of the complainant cannot be said to be justified in any manner.
35. The Criminal Case was registered in the year 2010 and the investigation is going on for the last 14 years. The petitioner has appeared before the Investigating Officer and has been interrogated and has already submitted the relevant documents which were available with him in connection with the allegations.
During course of arguments Senior Counsel appearing for the accused petitioner submitted that talks continued between the parties for about one year for compromise. This fact was admitted by the counsel appearing for the complainant also.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (44 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] Putting and keeping sword of arrest on the neck of a person for such a long period is more than the punishment provided under the law for the offences alleged against the petitioner. From the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it will not be justified in any manner to allow the Investigating Agency to arrest the petitioner and more particularly when he has already been interrogated and he is also ready to cooperate with the investigation.
36. The filing of petition by the accused petitioner to quash the FIR and the proceedings thereon does not preclude him from asking for anticipatory bail in the said criminal case.
37. The counsel appearing for the complainant during the course of arguments submitted that the accused petitioner is hand in gloves with the Senior Police Officers and one high Constitutional dignitary of the State.
There is no material with the counsel for the complainant to support such submissions.
38. From the discussions made above, this Court comes to following conclusions:-
(i) The accused petitioner has not been found to be a proclaimed offender as no declaration as required under sub-
section (4) of Section 82 CrPC has been made against him in this regard.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (45 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
(ii) Before deciding this anticipatory bail application, all relevant factors including the facts of the case are required to be considered and same cannot be thrown out merely because it is alleged that warrant of arrest has been issued against him after filing of charge-sheet under section 299 CrPC.
(iii) Before making any opinion, the Court is also supposed to look into the facts and the circumstances of the case and the manner in which an accused has been said to be hiding himself.
(iv) The accused petitioner has participated in the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer and has been interrogated and further he has submitted all the relevant documents which were available with him.
(v) The accused petitioner is going Abroad and coming back to India in the last 14 years when the investigation was pending, which shows that there are no chances of him absconding.
(vi) The investigation of this criminal case has been assigned to various 13 Investigating Officers, which is contrary to the State Government's own Circular dated 06.01.2019.
(Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (46 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024]
(vii) It is also a fact on record that at one point of time after conclusion of the investigation, Final Negative Report was submitted before the Competent Court and thereafter under the orders of some Officer, re-investigation was made. Further, Final Negative Report was proposed by another Investigating Officer considering the material to be of civil nature and finally charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 CrPC. These facts clearly show that the prosecution itself is in doubt whether the accused petitioner has committed the offence or not.
(viii) The issue regarding dispute of Directors or Additional Directors agitated from both the sides, is pending before NCLT.
(ix) The talks for negotiation between the parties were also held.
39. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the arguments advanced at Bar, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits/ demerits of the case allow the anticipatory bail application filed by the accused petitioner u/S 438 Cr.P.C., and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Harshvardhan Johari S/o Shri Govind Johari in connection with FIR No.199/2010 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North) shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:29878] (47 of 47) [CRLMB-7581/2024] personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J Sharma NK/Dy. Registrar (Downloaded on 30/07/2024 at 09:10:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)