Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9154 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38000]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4399/2023

1. Mukesh S/o Sh. Sojulal Banjara, Aged About 23 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

2. Mukesh S/o Sh. Mukesh Banjara, Aged About 27 Years, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

3. Parasram S/o Sh. Gomaram Banjara, Aged About 34 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

4. Anil S/o Sh. Amra Banjara, Aged About 28 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

5. Roshan S/o Sh. Dunga Banjara, Aged About 36 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

6. Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Goma Banjara, Aged About 38 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

7. Chotulal S/o Sh. Mangilal Banjara, Aged About 27 Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

8. Rai Singh S/o Sh. Mannalal Banjara, Aged About 32 Years, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

9. Jagdish S/o Sh. Balu Banjara, Aged About 37 Years, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.

10. Prakash S/o Sh. Goma Banjara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o W.no. 5, Nadi Mohalla, Vijay Nagar, Ajmer.

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Kumar, PP

[2023:RJ-JD:38000] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARZAND ALI

Order

06/11/2023

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of

accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                           Particulars of the Case
     1.    FIR Number                                393/2022
     2.    Concerned Police Station                  Kankroli
     3.    District                                  Rajsamand
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR               Sections 354, 292, 384, 120-
                                                     B IPC and Sections 67-A and
                                                     66-E of the IT Act
     5.    Offences added, if any                    -
     6.    Date   of    passing                of 12.04.2023
           impugned order


2.        Having      apprehension       of    being      arrested    in   the   afore-

mentioned matter, the petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out

against them and their 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-petitioners and they have been

made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submit 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.

[2023:RJ-JD:38000] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]

6. Present one is not such a case, where custodial investigation

from the petitioners would be required. An interim order was

passed in favour of the petitioners on 24.04.2023 restraining their

arrest in the present case, whereafter around 6 months have

lapsed and the petitioners are enjoying the said protection since

then and they have not misused the liberty or transgressed their

limits during this 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 petitioners 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.

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

any 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;

[2023:RJ-JD:38000] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]

(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.

(FARZAND ALI),J 150-Pramod/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)