SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Anita @ Ansai vs State on 30 March, 2017

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 2714 / 2017
Smt. Anita @ Ansai W/o Sh. Kesu Lal Sen, Resident of Madara,
Tehsil Gogunda Police Station Ogna, District Udaipur.

—-Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Menaria.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Deepak Choudhary, P.P.
For Complainant(s): Mr.B.S.Deora.
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
30/03/2017

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

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

No.11/2017, P.S. Ogna, District Udaipur, for the offences under

Sections 354 I.P.C., 7, 8, 17 of POCSO Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

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 Smt. Anita @ Ansai in
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-2714/2017]

connection with F.I.R. No.11/2017, P.S. Ogna, District Udaipur, for

the offences under Sections, the petitioner shall be released on

bail; provided she 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Your email address will not be published.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 *

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