Sanju vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9814 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9814 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 November, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanju vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 November, 2023

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2023:RJ-JD:39233]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8183/2022

1. Sanju W/o Sh. Ramswaroop, Aged About 40 Years, Osian Road, Khiwsar, Teh. Khiwsar, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 45 Years, Osian Road, Khiwsar, Teh. Khiwsar, Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

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


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. B.S. Gaur
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
                                   Mr. Mohd. Sameer Khan for
                                   Mr. Sunil Mehta



                          JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                        Order

16/11/2023

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                            10/2022
     2.    Concerned Police Station              Kiwsar
     3.    District                              Nagaur
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR           Sections  420,   467,
                                                 468, 471 & 120B of the
                                                 IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any                -
     6.    Date   of    passing              of 17.06.2022
           impugned order





 [2023:RJ-JD:39233]                   (2 of 3)                    [CRLMB-8183/2022]


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 has been

made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel

for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit that

the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record.

5. The case relates to a transactional dispute between the

parties with regard to a property. The case is exclusively triable by

a Court of Magistrate for which the provisions contained under

Sections 41 and 41-A of the Cr.P.C. applies mutandis mutatis as

well as it covers with the preposition laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

[AIR 2014 SC 2756]. Present one is not a case where a

custodial interrogation would be required. It is not the case of the

prosecution that the petitioner is indulged in other criminal

activities. A Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim

protection to the petitioners on 22.06.2022 whereafter one and

half year has lapsed but there is not a single instance where any

misuse of the liberty granted to the petitioners have been

reported.

[2023:RJ-JD:39233] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8183/2022]

6. 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

the petitioners in connection with the FIR, details of which have

been given in tabular form above, they shall be released on bail,

provided each of them 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and