BABU BHAI KHIMA BHAI KATARA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks bail in a case registered against him under Section 420,468,471 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC and also Section 12 of the Passports Act. It is urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the present accused has been brought in the net with a view to defame him he being the members of Parliament and that this accused was travelling on general documents and was not working as carrier for other co-accused. It is further urged that the accused did not procure any forged documents for the other co-accused for going to Canada nor did he help the other co-accused for carrying them to Canada. It is also contended that the co-accused Paramjit kaur and Master Amarjit Singh have already been enlarged on bail. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned prosecutor. I have also looked into the FIR. The accusations against the petitioner are that on 18th April, 2007. he was found accompanied by one lady and a boy whose names were Paramjeet Kaur and Rajesh Babu. The lady and the boy were holding the diplomatic passport and visa issued in the name of Mrs. Sharda Ben Babu Bhai katara the wife of the appellant and were travelling on that passport whereas in actuality this accused has no son by the name of Rajesh Babu and the lady Paramjit Kaur was admittedly not the wife of the accused. This is the case of the prosecution that this accused was taking these two persons to toronto for a consideration of money.

(2.) I have heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and also the learned prosecutor. It is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody for quite sometime and the charge sheet has since been filed and keeping him further in the jail shall serve no purpose. On the other hand the learned prosecutor urged that the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and, therefore, the petitioner should not be released on bail. He has also urged that earlier on two occasions the petitioner had also moved applications for grant of bail but subsequently withdrawn the same. To meet these arguments, learned senior counsel for the petitioner urged that though the applications were withdrawn as the charge sheet was filed by the investigator and , therefore, the petitioner wanted to avail the opportunity in the trial court at the first instance after filing of the charge sheet but since the first bail application met rejection after filing the charge sheet, therefore, moved this application.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned prosecutor, and looking to the fact that the petitioner is in jail for more than one year, keeping him further in the jail shall serve no purpose. In these circumstances, on this sole ground, the petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.