SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jetha Ram vs State on 11 April, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 719 / 2017
Jetha Ram S/o Sh. Jamta Ram, by caste Mali, resident of
Sanchore, District Jalore.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
__
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dinesh Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ashok Upadhyay, P.P.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
11/04/2017

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

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

No.366/2016, P.S. Balotra, District Barmer, for the offences under

Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 342 I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the case diary.

The petitioner is the father-in-law of the complainant, who

alleged in the F.I.R. that the accused persons threw her down from

the roof of the house. However, from perusal of her injury report,

it is noticed that she was found suffering from one small abrasion

on her wrist. The Investigating Officer has deleted the offence

under Section 342 I.P.C. during investigation. The husband of the

complainant has already been arrested.

(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-719/2017]

Having regard to the facts and circumstances available on

record 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 Jetha Ram in connection

with F.I.R. No.366/2016, P.S. Balotra, District Barmer, 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(s) shall make himself/herself/themselves
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when
required;

(ii). that the petitioner(s) 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(s) shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

/tarun goyal/
Sr.P.A

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation