Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Charan Deep vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27645) on 20 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27645]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11975/2024
Charan Deep S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward
No.59, Sureshiya, Hanumangarh Junction, Teh. And Dist.
Hanumagarh, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achala Ram
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, DyGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 482 of the BNSS 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 Kesarisinghpur
3. District Sri Ganganagar
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 406 and 498-A of the
IPC
5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of 04.09.2024
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
against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no
[2025:RJ-JD:27645] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11975/2024]
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 opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for grant of
anticipatory bail.
4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. Under the
directions of this court, the petitioner has appeared before the
Investigating Officer and thorough investigation has been made
from him. Present one is not a case where custodial interrogation
would be required. It is a case of marital strife between the
spouses and if arrest is effected, then any possibility of their
reconciliation and reunion in future would be eliminated. The
offences involved in case are 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 light of these
facts and circumstances, 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.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 482 of
the BNSS is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
[2025:RJ-JD:27645] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11975/2024]
concerned police station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner named 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
132-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
