Mohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40572)
2023 Latest Caselaw 10070 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10070 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mohit vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:40572) on 24 November, 2023

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2023:RJ-JD:40572]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14109/2023

Mohit S/o Shyamsunder, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Galaxy
Emrald Apartment, Pragati Nagar, Shobaghpura Thana Sukher,
Dist Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Gamer Singh S/o Heera Singh, R/o Lai Ka Guda, P.s.
            Ambamata District Udaipur (Rajasthan).
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sudhir Saruparia with
                                   Mr. Palash Wadhwani
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Anda Ram Choudhary, PP



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

24/11/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. None present for the complainant despite service.

3. 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

     2.    Concerned Police Station              Ambamata
     3.    District                              Udaipur
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR           Sections
                                                 419,420,467,468,471,120              B
                                                 of IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any
     6.    Date   of    passing              of 31.10.2023
           impugned order


 [2023:RJ-JD:40572]                      (2 of 3)                     [CRLMB-14109/2023]




4.    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

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.

5. 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.

6. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record. If the

allegation is levelled in the F.I.R. are taken on its face value it

would reveal that no allegation of fabrication of first document has

made against the petitioner rather he purchased the property

subsequent to the alleged transaction based on forgery. Present is

not the case where custodial interrogation would be required. The

offences involved in case are 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.

7. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case,

it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the

[2023:RJ-JD:40572] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14109/2023]

petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the

observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of

the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting

on the niceties of the matter.

8. 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