High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 08 RAJ CK 0132

Mangi Bai vs State And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 5 August 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Devendra Kachhawaha, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3235, 3226, 3236, 3237, 3241, 3478 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 430 words

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as an abundant caution, hearing of the cases shall be only through video conferencing.

All these anticipatory bail application have been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with different First Information Reports (FIRs) registered at ACB Chowki, Udaipur for the offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code.

Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through video calling stated that the co-accused persons, namely, Mangilal S/o Vkta Ji Gayari & Nathulal have already been granted the benefit of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by this Court vide order dated 04.05.2020 (Bail Application No. 3238/2020) and other co-

accused persons, namely, Smt. Magni Bai W/o Dhanna Ji Gameti, Kalu S/o Lakhma Ji Gameti & Gamer Lal S/o Pema Ji Gameti by this Court vide dated 04.05.2020 (Bail Application No. 3240/2020), therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the benefit of anticipatory bail may be granted to the present accused-petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing these anticipatory bail applications of the accused-petitioners, is not in a position to controvert the above submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, all the eight bail applications moved under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the accused-petitiners are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioners, as named in each bail application, in connection with different First Information Reports (FIRs) registered at the ACB Chowki, Udaipur, the petitioners shall be released on bail provided erach of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

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

(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

A copy of this order be placed in each file.