Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balveer Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:14191) on 27 March, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:14191]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 625/2024
Balveer Singh S/o Gajraj Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Sunagar, Keshavrajpatan P.s., Dist. Bundi.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramswarup S/o Ladu Lal, R/o Kashiram Ji Ka Khera,
Shahpura P.s., Dist. Shahpura.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Magendra Singh, for
Mr. T.R. Singh Sodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/03/2024
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 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 Subhash Nagar
3. District Bhilwara
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 406, 420,
409 and 120B IPC.
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of 04.01.2024
impugned order
2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
[2024:RJ-JD:14191] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-625/2024]
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.
3. 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.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. This Court feels that there is a substance in the plea of the
defence that prima facie, no case under Section 409 IPC is
attracted and the rest of the charges do not have punishment
more than five years. In case like the present, the provisions
contained under Section 41A Cr.P.C. as well as the judgment
passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (AIR 2014 SC 2756] applies
squarely. It is felt that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is
not required for the purpose of completion of investigation. As far
as the question of his cooperation in the investigation is
concerned, he can be directed to do so.
6. 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.
7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
[2024:RJ-JD:14191] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-625/2024]
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
109-Ravi Khandelwal
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
