Bhagwana Ram vs State on 29 August, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 6473 / 2017
Bhagwana Ram S/o Sh. Sukhram, By Caste Vishnoi, Resident of
Khara. Presently Working As Teacher At Govt. Upper Primary
School, Mamanadi, Savdi, Tehsil Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.)

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, PP
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
29/08/2017

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the

petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.159/2017, Police Station Bhinmal, District Jalore for the

offences under Sections 406 IPC Section 3/7 of Essential

Commodities Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grain

which was to be distributed through public distribution system and

mid-day meal was recovered from the house of one Hari Ram.

Although Hari Ram is a relative of the petitioner but there is no

recovery from the house of petitioner which is adjoining to the

house of Hari Ram. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in

the present case.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor.

(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-6473/2017]

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this

Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory

bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of petitioner Bhagwana Ram S/o

Sukhram, in connection with F.I.R. No.159/2017, Police Station

Bhinmal District Jalore, the petitioner shall be released on bail;

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

along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of

the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. 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.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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