Aman Rai vs State on 8 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 5778 / 2017
Aman Rai S/o Naresh Rai, R/o L-87, 88, Ansal Sushant City,
Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.).

—-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, P.P., for the State
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Order
08/08/2017

Petitioner has laid this pre-arrest bail application under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. to thwart his arrest pursuant to FIR

No.67/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station, Bikaner for alleged

offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC.

In the FIR aforesaid, besides petitioner his parents were also

named as accused persons but the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, (women Atrocities) Cases, Bikaner, while considering their

pre-arrest bail application, has only enlarged them on bail by

order dated 15.06.2017.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Vinay Jain that complainant left the matrimonial home in 2015

and lodged the FIR after almost two years as such, it is a glaring

example of false implication. Learned counsel further submits that

as per the demand of complainant and her family members,
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-5778/2017]

petitioner also handed-over requisite ornaments and dowry

articles but soon thereafter, yet another list has been prepared by

the complainant mentioning other items without any basis. It is

also argued by learned counsel that petitioner has joined

investigation pursuant to the interim protection granted by the

Court and looking to the nature of dispute which is essentially

founded on the matrimonial discord between rival parties, it is not

desirable to subject him for custodial interrogation.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail plea of the

petitioner. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that as per

complainant, some more ornaments and dowry articles are yet to

be recovered, therefore, petitioner’s plea for pre-arrest bail be

thwarted.

I heard heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it

just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner,

Aman Rai s/o Naresh Rai, in connection with FIR No.67/2017,

Mahila Police Station, Bikaner, he shall be enlarged on bail

provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on following conditions:-

(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-5778/2017]

(i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by

Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) He 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 to any Police Officer;

(iii) He shall not leave India without previous permission of

the court.

(P.K. LOHRA)J.

Bharti/96

Leave a Comment

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