MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE
LAWS(RAJ)-2017-7-2
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JODHPUR)
Decided on July 06,2017

MURLIDHAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record. This bail application has been filed by petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.267/2010 of Police Station ATP Bhilwara, District Bhilwara for offences punishable under Sections 135, 136 and 150 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Assistant Engineer, Ramkhiladi Meena, has been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court besides other accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of he case, 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. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner, Murlidhar S/o Mohan Lal Malav, in FIR No.267/2010, Police Station A.T.P. Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, 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 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. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.