9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t i.e. FIR No. 107/2007 dated 3.5.2007 Jaipur City, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. It is alleged that the complainant agreed to purchase the flats being Flat Nos. 101 and 101A from the appellant and his father the necessary consideration was received by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The same flats were subsequently sold to somebody else. It is, therefore, alleged that the appellant has committed offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC. Amar Nath Saxena (father of the Appellant); the Appellant i.e., Ravindra Saxena; Shrimati Sharada Devi and Pradeep Maheshwari and accused numbers 1 to 4 in the FIR. According to the appellant the investigation in the FIR was taken over by Samunder Singh, ASI, who hap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant also sought quashing of the FIR in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Rajasthan. This was also rejected by the High Court. The appellant again moved application for anticipatory bail which was rejected by the High Court on 24.03.2008. Therefore, the appellant approached this Court by way of petition for special leave to appeal, which was disposed of on 12.2.2009 with the following order: This special leave petition is filed against an order of the High Court dismissing the second bail application of the petitioner under Section 438. Cr.P.C. On the prayer of Mr. S.K. Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the special leave petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... application is made to the High Court or Court of Sessions it must apply its own mind on the question and decide when the case is made out for granting such relief. In our opinion, the High Court ought not to have left the matter to the Magistrate only on the ground that the challan has now been presented. There is also no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because the allegation in this case pertains to cheating or forgery of a valuable security. The merits of these issues shall have to be assessed at the time of the trial of the accused persons and denial of anticipatory bail only on the ground that the challan has been presented would not satisfy the requirements of Sections 437 and 438 Cr.P.C. 9. In our opinion, the High Court co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uot;. We may notice here some more observations made by this Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh (supra): We find a great deal of substance in Mr. Tarkunde's submission that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
