Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Nitesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27154) on 13 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27154]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODH-
PUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5180/2025
1. Nitesh Kumar S/o Gulab Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
Phulera, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur, Currently
Residing At Flat No.203, Second Floor, Manikanta Ele-
gance, Hasmathpet Old Bowenpally, Police Station Bowen-
pally, District Secunderabad, Telangana
2. Gulab Chand S/o Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 55 Years,
Phulera, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur, Currently
Residing At Flat No.203, Second Floor, Manikanta Ele-
gance, Hasmathpet Old Bowenpally, Police Station Bowen-
pally, District Secunderabad, Telangana
3. Sangeeta W/o Gulab Chand, Aged About 52 Years,
Phulera, Police Station Phulera, District Jaipur, Currently
Residing At Flat No.203, Second Floor, Manikanta Ele-
gance, Hasmathpet Old Bowenpally, Police Station Bowen-
pally, District Secunderabad, Telangana
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lallan Prasad Rai
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 fil-
ing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the in-
stance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Roll
[2025:RJ-JD:27154] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5180/2025]
3. District Nagaur
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 498-A & 406
of IPC
5. Offences added, if any ---
6. Date of passing of 27.08.2024
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. There seems
to be a marital dispute that led to the separation of the parties.
The husband issued a notice on 31.05.2024, asking the victim to
resume the conjugal relationship, which was received by her.
However, instead of returning back, she went to lodge the FIR on
16.06.2024, much after the initiation of proceedings at the
instance of the petitioner party. The alleged offence is not
punishable with a sentence of more than seven years, and
therefore, the provisions contained under Sections 41 and 41-A of
the Cr.P.C., as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8
[2025:RJ-JD:27154] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5180/2025]
SCC 273, apply mutatis mutandis. Custodial interrogation is not
required. Arrest in this case may cause incalculable harm to the
self-esteem and societal reputation of the petitioners. They are
willing to cooperate with the investigation.
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 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
133-Love/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
