2017 (7) TMI 1356 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - contention is that the petitioners have not appeared before the Investigating Officer and they did not appear before the Court as such the Court has issued arrest warrant against the petitioners and since arrest warrants have been issued - HELD THAT - The question of maintainability of bail application after issuance of warrant of arrest was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Nand Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1979 RLW 477 1979 (7) TMI 253 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT and the High Court has held that anticipatory bail is maintainable even though the Magistrate has taken cognizance and has issued warrant of arrest against the accused. As far as the present case is concerned, co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail, petitioners Gopal Mittal and Mahesh Mittal, who have supplied the medicine in accordance with the work order. As per the case of the prosecution the total loss caused to the Government by purchase of medicine is to the tune of ₹ 2,12,000/-. It is deemed proper to allow the application for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners - Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. - Maintainability of bail application after issuance of warrant of arrest - Grant of anticipatory bail to co-accused - Allegation of causing loss to the Government by purchase of medicine.

Analysis:
The petitioners filed a bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. concerning an FIR registered for offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and IPC. The counsel argued that one co-accused had been granted bail, and the petitioners' case was similar. It was further contended that the petitioners, as suppliers of medicine, had fulfilled their obligations under the work order. The matter dated back to 1998-99, with the challan filed in 2017. The Public Prosecutor opposed the bail, citing the petitioners' failure to cooperate with the Investigating Officer and court, resulting in arrest warrants being issued.

The judge considered the arguments and referred to a previous Division Bench judgment which held that anticipatory bail is maintainable even after the issuance of a warrant of arrest. In this case, the co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail, and the petitioners had supplied medicine as per the work order. The prosecution alleged a loss of ?2,12,000 to the Government due to the purchase of medicine. Taking into account the facts presented, the judge deemed it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Consequently, the Anticipatory Bail Application was allowed, with specific conditions imposed. The petitioners were directed to furnish a personal bond and sureties, refrain from influencing witnesses, not leave India without court permission, and undertake to appear in court as required. Failure to comply would result in the issuance of fresh non-bailable warrants. The order was to be included in the case file for reference.