Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3128 (RAJ)

Prem Swaroop Vashishth v. State

2019-12-19

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No.315/2018 of Police Station Sadar, Bikaner for the offence punishable under Sections 464, 466, 468, 469, 471, 420, 166A, 120-B of IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that in this matter, the complainant was caught by anti corruption bureau in September, 2015 while accepting bribe from the contractor concerned and in that trap case the police, after thorough investigation, have filed charge-sheet against him and case against the complainant is pending trial. It is submitted that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Executive Engineer in the office where the complainant was working as accountant and he is a police witness in the bribery case against the complainant. 4. It is submitted that thereafter in the year 2018, the complainant has filed a complaint against the petitioner and other co-accused persons alleging that they prepared some forged documents such as measurement books etc., and on the basis of that they have made payment to the contractor though the work was not completed. 5. It is further argued that in the present FIR, investigation was conducted by the two Investigating Officers and one of the Investigating Officer has concluded that the offence is made out against the petitioner, however, the subsequent Investigating Officer gave clean chit to the petitioner and the other co-accused persons. Thereafter, under the direction of the concerned court, further investigation was conducted wherein, the police are trying to arrest the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was retired as Executive Engineer four years back and now he has falsely been implicated in this case by the complainant only with the intention to pressurize him not to support the prosecution case of the bribery pending against him. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has already joined the investigation on several occasions, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 7. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner has already joined the investigation on several occasions, therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is the witness in a bribery case against the complainant and he has already been interrogated by the Investigating Officers on several occasions, one of the Investigating Officer has already granted clean chit to him, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Prem Swaroop Vashishth S/o Shri S.b. Vashishth in FIR No.315/2018 of Police Station Sadar, Bikaner he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:- (i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; (ii) He 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 to any Police Officer; (iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.