AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail and submits that he is not the principal accused and a co-accused has been granted pre-arrest bail. Learned lawyer
appearing for the defacto-complainant submits that roclamation and attachment has been issued against the petitioner.
Learned lawyer appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail also. We have considered the materials on record. We find that the
petitioner is not the principal assailant and a co accused has been granted anticipatory bail.Â
We also note that by order dated 13.4.2017 warrant, proclamation and attachment was issued against the accused persons. We are of the opinion that
the simultaneous issuance of such processes by the Magistrate is contrary to law and cannot denude the jurisdiction of this court to consider the
prayer of the petitioner on merits.
In view of the aforesaid fact and the extent of complicity of the petitioner in the instant case and that the co-accused who is similarly circumstanced
with the petitioner has been granted pre-arrest bail, we are inclined to extend the same relief to the petitioner also.
Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand
only) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
 The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously
after complying with all necessary legal formalities.