Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deendar vs . State Of Rajasthan on 23 April, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4190/2014. Deendar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order : : 23.4.2014 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Yadav, Public Prosecutor.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the accused-petitioner has moved this application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.47/2010 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 332, 353, 307 & 395 IPC and 132, 133, 135 of 136 of Representation of the People Act.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the evidence collected during investigation, which has been produced before me by way of case diary, and more particularly looking to the fact that some of the similarly situated co-accused have already been granted benefit of anticipatory bail and also looking to the number of persons involved in the incident and no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Consequently, the application for anticipatory bail is allowed.
The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur in F.I.R. No.47/2010 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Deendar S/o Muneera, 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 his satisfaction 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.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL ),J.
A.Arora/-
Item No.118.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
AMIT ARORA PERSONAL ASSISTANT