NANDLAL ACHARYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no opportunity was given to the complainant at the time of granting anticipatory bail by learned trial Court. He further stated that if an opportunity was granted to the complainant, the situation would have different; he can place factual situation before learned trial Court and in that eventuality, the interim order would not have been passed by learned trial Court. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments as under:

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 stated that there is no statutory requirement that opportunity of hearing shall be given to the complainant in each and every case and without statutory requirement opportunity for hearing cannot be claimed as a matter of right, this aspect was considered by learned trial Court. This matter is related to offences punishable under Ss. 420 and 426 of the Indian Penal Code and benefit of anticipatory bail was granted on different ground, that no custodial interrogation is required in this case and the anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a mechanical manner. Learned counsel further stated that it was not argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order was not validly passed by the learned trial Court or the accused-petitioner misused the liberty given by learned trial Court by relying upon following two judgments :-