Sanjeev Kumar Jat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27158)
2025 Latest Caselaw 10608 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 10608 Raj
Judgement Date : 13 June, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sanjeev Kumar Jat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27158) on 13 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:27158]

          -HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                           JODHPUR
      S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4460/2025

1.          Sanjeev Kumar Jat S/o Indra Singh Jat, Aged About 53
            Years, R/o House No. 104, Gali No. 13, Tiranga Chowk,
            Shri Shyam Aparment, Near Nawada Metro Station, New
            Delhi
2.          Babita W/o Sanjeev Kumar Jat, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
            House No. 104, Gali No. 13, Tiranga Chowk, Shri Shyam
            Aparment, Near Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi
3.          Rupanshu S/o Sajneev Kumar Jat, Aged About 27 Years,
            R/o House No. 104, Gali No. 13, Tiranga Chowk, Shri
            Shyam Aparment, Near Nawada Metro Station, New Delhi
                                                                        ----Petitioners
                                          Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                       ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)               :     None present
For Respondent(s)               :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP



                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

13/06/2025

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

filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the

instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter

are tabulated herein below:

S.No.                            Particulars of the Case

     2.    Concerned Police Station                 Mahila Thana
     3.    District                                 Bikaner
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR              Under Sections 85, 115(2),
                                                    316(2) of B.N.S.
     5.    Offences added, if any                   ---
     6.    Date       of      passing           of 08.04.2025



 [2025:RJ-JD:27158]                      (2 of 3)                    [CRLMB-4460/2025]


        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 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-petitioners and they have been

made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioners, 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. The petitioners

are parents and brother of the principal accused Lakshay Khatri

with whom the complainant married on 04.11.2022 and due to

marital strife, she went to lodge the FIR on 01.04.2025. Though

there are allegations of subjecting the victim to cruelty in

connection of demand of dowry for bringing less dowry but in light

of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273 and

taking into account the fact that the offence alleged are not

punishable for more than three yeas and so also taking

consideration that the petitioners would cooperate with the

investigation and custodial interrogation is not required. I do not

feel it appropriate to direct them to first to admit to jail and then

to get bail.

[2025:RJ-JD:27158] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4460/2025]

5. 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.

5. 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.

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, they shall be released on bail,

provided they furnish 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