AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 328 wordsManoj Kumar Garg, J
This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 14/2022, Police Station Industrial Area, Distt. Pali for the offences under Sections 4, 21, 23 of Mines and Mineral (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 & Section 379 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and he has also deposited Rs.2,03,000/- before the Mining Department. In such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite time. Thus, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
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 since the petitioner has already deposited the amount of Rs. 2,03,000/-,therefore, it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Ajij Khan S/o Shri Rafik Khan, in connection with FIR No.14/2022, Police Station Industrial Area, Distt. Pali, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-
(i) that the petitioner shall make herself 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.