Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anjana vs State (2024:Rj-Jd:9312) on 22 February, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:9312]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12833/2021
Anjana W/o Late Shri Harish Chandra, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
10 Saifan Colony, Bedla Road, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None present
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mehar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order 22/02/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
1. FIR Number 169/2021
2. Concerned Police Station Jhadole
3. District Udaipur
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 409, 420, 467, 468,
471 & 120-B IPC
5. Offences added, if any --
6. Date of passing of 10.09.2021
impugned order
2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:52:33 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:9312] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12833/2021] factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The offence involved in case is triable by a Court of Magistrate, for which the provisions contained under Section 41 and 41A of the CrPC are applicable mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [AIR 2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present case, where custodial investigation would not be required.
6. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter around 2 years have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in 2022/INSC/275, and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter. (Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:52:33 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:9312] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12833/2021]
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI),J 142-Samvedana/-
(Downloaded on 22/02/2024 at 08:52:33 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)