Paras Ram Vishnoi vs Director, CBI, New Delhi

Accused-petitioner, facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 120B IPC in Sessions Case No.97/2011, pending before Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Court, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has laid this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking interim bail for one month. The sessions case aforesaid against him is founded on FIR No.RC7(S)/2011- CBI/SC-1/New Delhi. In the application, seeking interim bail for this duration, it is inter-alia averred that the petitioner is required to perform marriage of his son and daughter, which are scheduled to be held on 8th and 10th Nov., 2019 respectively.

Mr. Nahata, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is behind the bars for last 7 years and he has to ensure not only the marital arrangements but also finances so that marriage of his daughter and son is solemnized seemlessly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner's presence in the marriage of his daughter and son is necessary and if the petitioner is allowed the benefit of interim bail to attend the ceremonies, he would surrender after availing the same and would not try to fly. A prayer has been made to grant interim bail of a month.

Per contra, Mr. Panney Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, has vehemently opposed the plea of petitioner. It has been argued by him that six regular bail applications of the petitioner were earlier rejected by this Court and the Apex Court too has declined him bail. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that out of the total 197 witnesses cited by CBI in the matter, 196 have already been examined and only one foreigner witness (from U.S.), remains to be examined. Mr. Singh apprehended that there is a likelihood of petitioner not surrendering in case he is granted benefit of interim bail looking to his background. He further submits that earlier also petitioner was denied interim bail on many occasions.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration over the issue.

Needless to observe that in a marriage ceremony of son and daughter, father's presence is imperative, if not necessary. It is true that the petitioner is facing trial for serious offences and the trial may be on the verge of completion, but the petitioner's genuine request for interim bail, cannot be denied solely for the reason that he is being tried for heinous offense.

According to this Court, the petitioner is entitled for interim bail to perform rituals and marriage ceremonies of his son and daughter.

In view thereof, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to release petitioner on interim bail for twelve days and he may be released on 31.10.2019 evening latest by 05:00 PM with a direction to surrender before the concerned jail authority on or before 13.11.2019 latest by 11:00 AM. The petitioner is required to furnish a personal bond of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with written undertaking that he would surrender after availing of the interim bail.

The interim bail application is allowed as indicated above.