SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arun Goyal vs State on 25 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 2317 / 2017
Arun Goyal S/o Sh. Ghanshyamdas Goyal,, Resident of 1-94,
Malviya Nagar, Jaipur (raj)
—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.
—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.S.Rathore, P.P.
For Complainant : Mr. Hemant Jain
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
25/04/2017

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.8/2017, Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri Ganganagar for the

offences under Sections 406, 498A and 377 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material on record.

There is ample evidence on the record to show that the

petitioner deposited huge sums of money in the saving account of

the complainant. She was also made a Director in the petitioner’s

company and immoveable property purchased in her name. The

petitioner has appeared for investigation. As requested by the

learned counsel, the parties were directed to appear before

Mediator at the Mediation Centre, Jodhpur on 12.4.2017. However,

the complainant failed to appear for mediation.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-2317/2017]

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as

available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments

advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that 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 Arun Goyal in connection

with F.I.R. No.8/2017, Police Station Mahila Thana, Sri

Ganganagar, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with

two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following

conditions :-

(i). that the petitioner(s) shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner(s) 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(s) shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

/sushil/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation