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
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
[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.
[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/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
