Court grants anticipatory bail in financial loss case; conditions imposed include personal bond, non-influencing witnesses, and appearance.

The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a case involving allegations of causing a financial loss to the Government through the purchase of medicine. Despite arrest warrants being issued due to alleged non-cooperation, the judge considered that anticipatory bail was maintainable post-issuance of arrest warrants, especially since a co-accused had already been granted bail. Specific conditions were imposed on the petitioners, including furnishing a personal bond and sureties, refraining from influencing witnesses, staying in India, and appearing in court as required, with the warning of fresh non-bailable warrants if conditions were breached.

---

---

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 Rs. 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.

---