HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4496 / 2017
Lalit Goyal S/o Sh. Bajrang Lal, B/c Agarwal, R/o Elnabad, District
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Smt. Neeru W/o Lalit Goyal D/o Sh. Madanlal Jindal, B/c
Agarwal, R/o 304-A, Agrasen Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.MS Panwar, PP Mr.Jitendra Ojha.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
By way of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 7.12.2017 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar whereby, the application
filed by the respondent no.2 smt. Neeru under Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C. was allowed and the regular bail granted to the petitioner
by order dated 15.9.2017 by the learned Sessions Judge was
Learned counsel Shri Shah submits that the petitioner was
arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2017 on 13.9.2017. His bail
application was rejected by the learned Magistrate. In the
proceedings of bail before the learned Sessions Judge, an
agreement was arrived at between the parties that the petitioner
(2 of 3)
would keep the complainant with him. However, the agreement
fell out later on. He urges that the learned Sessions Judge had
granted regular bail to the petitioner and thus, there was no
occasion for him to cancel the same implored the Court to set
aside the impugned order.
Per contra, learned counsel Shri Ojha urges that the
petitioner misled the Sessions Court by making a false statement
that he would be keeping the complainant with himself and
thereby fraudulently procured the bail order. However, the
petitioner did not abide by his promise and never took the
complainant to the matrimonial home.
In reply to this contention, learned counsel Shri Shah urges
that after being released from custody, the petitioner took the
complainant with himself to his home. However, the complainant’s
relatives came at the petitioner’s house and tried to assault him
and thereafter, the complainant was taken back by her father. He
were initiated against Madanlal, Smt.Neeru and Pramod in the
Court of A.D.M., Sri Ganganagar on 11.10.2017. He thus opposes
the submission advanced by Shri Ojha that the petitioner
breached the conditions of bail and craves acceptance of the
instant misc. petition.
Having heard the arguments advanced at Bar and having
considered the entirety of facts and circumstances as emerging
from record, it is apparent that the petitioner indeed took
complainant to the matrimonial home after he was released on
bail. However, the things did not move happily and some disputes
(3 of 3)
arose between the spouses whereafter, the complainant left the
were launched by the petitioner against the complainant others
in relation to this set of events. Thus, by no stretch of imagination
can this Court be convinced that the petitioner breached the offer
made on his behalf during the course of proceedings of bail
application which was allowed on 15.9.2017. In this background,
the learned Sessions Judge was not justified in cancelling the
regular bail granted to the petitioner for the offences under
In view of the above discussion, the instant misc. petition
deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The order dated
7.12.2017 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar
whereby, the application filed by the respondent no.2 smt. Neeru
the petitioner was cancelled is quashed and set aside and the
order dated 15.9.2017 is restored.
Stay petition also stands disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.