Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Tanveer Ali S/O Jahid Ali vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 September, 2021

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13286/2021

Tanveer Ali S/o Jahid Ali, R/o Karsova Mujaffar Nagar U.P.
                                                        ----Accused-Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Ghan Shyam Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. F.R. Meena, PP



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                    Order

23/09/2021
     This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.

09/2020 registered at Police Station S.O.G. Jaipur for the

offence(s) under Section(s) 420 & 120-B IPC.

     It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that he

is operating as travel agent since the year 2005 in the name of

ALFA HRD Services as is evident from the Udyog Aadhar Card

issued by the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium Enterprises

Government of India. He submitted that he received an e-mail

from Sanwarmal Jhajria on 23.07.2019 to book tickets for four

persons including complainant which were accordingly booked by

him. He submitted that even as per the FIR, Visa and tickets were

handed over to the complainant party by a twenty years' boy who,

during the investigation, has been identified as Mr. Praveen.

Learned counsel submitted that at no point of time, he ever



                    (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 10:13:52 PM)
                                    (2 of 3)                     [CRLMB-13286/2021]


extended any assurance to the complainant or any other person

for arranging working Visa for them. He submitted that he does

not have any criminal antecedents and prayed for benefit of pre-

arrest bail.

      Opposing the bail application, learned Public Prosecutor

submitted that the petitioner in conspiracy with other co-accused persons committed the offence and warrant under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 has been issued against him. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the bail application.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the nature of allegation against him, the material on record including the Udyog Aadhar Card of the petitioner, registration certificate of the petitioner's firm under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, e-mail dated 23.07.2019 received by the petitioner from Sawarmal Jhanjharia and other material available in the case diary; but, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station the petitioner Tanveer Ali S/o Jahid Ali shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 10:13:52 PM)

                                                                       (3 of 3)                     [CRLMB-13286/2021]


                                   (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.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/31 (Downloaded on 23/09/2021 at 10:13:52 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)