Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anand Singh @ Ajaypal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24321) on 28 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JD:24321]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6403/2024
Anand Singh @ Ajaypal Singh S/o Late Arjun Singh, Aged About
35 Years, R/o 559, Rajendra Nagar, Pali Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shrawan Choudhary
Mr. Ravindra Jala
Mr. Foja Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
28/05/2024
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 Industrial Area
3. District Pali
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 420 and 406 of the
IPC
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of 14.05.2024
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
[2024:RJ-JD:24321] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6403/2024]
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. In view of the
fact that initially some documents were given by the victims to the
petitioner after appending their signatures, it is felt appropriate
that a bonafide dispute is indeed there in between them. Present
is not a case where custodial interrogation would be required. The
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.
5. 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. 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.
[2024:RJ-JD:24321] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6403/2024]
6. 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
55-divya/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
