Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:38000) on 6 November, 2023
Author: Farzand Ali
Bench: Farzand Ali
[2023:RJ-JD:38000]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4399/2023
1. Mukesh S/o Sh. Sojulal Banjara, Aged About 23 Years,
Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
2. Mukesh S/o Sh. Mukesh Banjara, Aged About 27 Years,
Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.
3. Parasram S/o Sh. Gomaram Banjara, Aged About 34
Years, Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya,
Dist. Rajsamand.
4. Anil S/o Sh. Amra Banjara, Aged About 28 Years,
Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
5. Roshan S/o Sh. Dunga Banjara, Aged About 36 Years,
Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
6. Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Goma Banjara, Aged About 38 Years,
Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
7. Chotulal S/o Sh. Mangilal Banjara, Aged About 27 Years,
Kesarpura, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
8. Rai Singh S/o Sh. Mannalal Banjara, Aged About 32
Years, Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist.
Rajsamand.
9. Jagdish S/o Sh. Balu Banjara, Aged About 37 Years,
Soniyana, Banjara Basti, Teh. Kuwariya, Dist. Rajsamand.
10. Prakash S/o Sh. Goma Banjara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
W.no. 5, Nadi Mohalla, Vijay Nagar, Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Kumar, PP
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:34:07 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38000] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARZAND ALI
Order 06/11/2023
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application 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 1. FIR Number 393/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Kankroli 3. District Rajsamand 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 354, 292, 384, 120- B IPC and Sections 67-A and 66-E of the IT Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of 12.04.2023 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 an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submit 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. (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:34:07 PM) [2023:RJ-JD:38000] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]
6. Present one is not such a case, where custodial investigation from the petitioners would be required. An interim order was passed in favour of the petitioners on 24.04.2023 restraining their arrest in the present case, whereafter around 6 months have lapsed and the petitioners are enjoying the said protection since then and they have not misused the liberty or transgressed their limits during this 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. 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.
7. 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 any 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;(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:34:07 PM)
[2023:RJ-JD:38000] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4399/2023]
(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.
(FARZAND ALI),J 150-Pramod/-
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:34:07 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)