Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Amul vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26164) on 27 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:26164]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9968/2024
Sanjeev S/o Shri Bapu Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Biliya Dungari, P.s. Sadar, Dist. Banswara,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10681/2023
Amul S/o Shri Motilal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Tanda
Karamdikheda, Ps Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
27/05/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an applications under Section 438 CrPC 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 Pratapgarh
3. District Pratapgarh
4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 420, 409, 467, 468
& 120B of IPC
[2025:RJ-JD:26164] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9968/2024]
5. Offences added, if any --
6. Date of passing of 22.07.2024
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 them and their 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 accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. 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.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
6. The petitioner-Amul preferred the bail application in the year
2023, and where upon he was given protection by a coordinate
Bench of this Court restraining his arrest. He was directed to join
the investigation and accordingly he shall be investigated
thoroughly. The allegation against these petitioners are that some
part of the entire commodity used to be purchased by them. Since
then no case has been made and it is not a case, whether
recovery is to be affected from them.
7. 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
[2025:RJ-JD:26164] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9968/2024]
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.
8. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner
restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter around one
and a half years have lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the
said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty
during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been
received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs.
State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in
2022/INSC/275, and 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.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 438
Cr.P.C. are 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 each of them 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 petitioners shall make themselves
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or
[2025:RJ-JD:26164] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9968/2024]
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts
to the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI), J
263-Samvedana/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
