HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
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.).
The State of Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, P.P., for the State
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
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)
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
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)
(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