Ramotar vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 10 July, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 8652 / 2017
Ramotar S/o Bhajan B/c Meena, Aged About 47 Years, R/o

Kirwada, Police Station Shri Mahaveer Ji, Distt. Karauli (raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
—-Respondent

__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, PP
Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
10/07/2017

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 438 of

Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.82/2017 was registered at Police Station, Shri

Mahaveer Ji, District Karauli for offence under Sections 323, 341,

354, 452 379 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is uncle-in-law of the complainant. The allegations

pertaining to under Section 354 I.P.C. are against the sons of the

petitioner and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he

has been pressurizing the complainant to give share in the

property.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-8652/2017]

have opposed the bail application.

5. Considering the contentions, I deem it proper to allow the

anticipatory bail.

6. The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The

S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Shri Mahaveer Ji, District

Karauli in F.I.R. No.82/2017, is directed that in the event of arrest of the

petitioner 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.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

Arti/19

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *