SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajendra Kumar vs State on 27 September, 2019

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11352/2019

Smt Priya W/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 48 Years, By Caste
Panchori Jain, R/o Sagwara, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.

—-Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11353/2019
Rajendra Kumar S/o Jeevraj, Aged About 57 Years, By Caste
Panchori Jain, R/o Sagwara, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.

—-Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mridul Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharvan Bishnoi, P.P.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Order

27/09/2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned

Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR

No.238/2019 of P.S. Gaddi, District Banswara, for the offences

punishable under Sections 406 and 498A I.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in

pursuance to the order dated 27.9.2019 passed by this Court, the

petitioners appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:53:20 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-11352/2019]

investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that allegations of harassing the complainant for dowry levelled

against the petitioners are absolutely false. It is argued that

marriage of son of the petitioners was solemnized with the

complainant on 28.2.2019 and after some time of marriage, both

started living at Mumbai where the son of the petitioners is

working as Custom Officer. It is also submitted that on account of

mis-understanding between the son of the petitioners and

complainant, a dispute arose and the complainant came to her

parents house. It is further submitted that on 16.4.2019, the

parents and other relatives of the complainant, petitioners

themselves, their son and their relatives assembled at Badodiya to

settle the dispute between them, however, the dispute could not

be settled rather both the parties started quarreling with each

other and filed cross criminal cases. It is submitted that to

pressurize the petitioners to withdraw the criminal case filed by

them against the family of the complainant, the petitioners have

falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the

petitioners has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of

the case, the petitioners are entitled to be granted the benefit of

on anticipatory bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

gone through the case diary and taking into consieration the fact

that earlier the criminal cases regarding assault between the

parties were filed and no specific role has been attributed to the

petitioners by the complainant in the FIR as well as in her

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:53:20 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-11352/2019]

statements, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the

accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the

petitioners Smt Priya W/o Rajendra Kumar and Rajendra Kumar

S/o Jeevraj in FIR No.238/2019 of P.S. Gaddi, District Banswara

they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 the following conditions:-

(i) They shall make themselves available for
interrogation by Investigating Officer as
and when required;

(ii) They 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) They shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

137-138-Babulal/-

(Downloaded on 27/09/2019 at 08:53:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Leave a Reply

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

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