Sunita vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 8297 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4194/2021 Sunita W/o Jai Prakash, Aged About 45 Years, Kaman, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

25/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The petitioner(s) apprehend(s) his/her/their arrest in

connection with FIR No.17/2021 of Police Station Hameerwas,

District Churu, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 458,

354, 323 and 143 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that

there is no material available on record to connect the petitioner

with the commission of crime. It is submitted that since the

petitioner is a lady, she may be granted benefit of anticipatory

bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application(s).

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-4194/2021]

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a lady,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem

it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused

petitioner(s) under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this/these bail application(s) under Section 438

Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest

of petitioner(s) - Sunita W/o Jai Prakash in connection with FIR

No.17/2021 of Police Station Hameerwas, District Churu,

he/she/they shall be enlarged on bail provided he/she/they

furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two

sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction

of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner(s) shall make

himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation

by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner(s) 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(s) shall not leave India without

previous permission of the court.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

173-mohit/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)