SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Smt Sabba @ Kherunisha & Ors vs State on 28 March, 2017

              S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 2267 / 2017
1. Smt Sabba @ Kherunisha W/o Sakir Ali

2. Smt Uruba @ Seeba D/o Sakir Ali

3. Sakir Ali S/o Fayaz Ali,
All by Caste Muslim, Residents of Gandhi Vihar, Nearby Aksa
Maszid, Khonagoriyan, Jaipur.



State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s)    : Mr. JVS Deora.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP.
For complainant      : Mr. Talat Bari.

     Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public

Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the

material available on record.

     This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the

petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.78/2016, registered at Women Police Station, District Nagaur

for the offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323 IPC and Section 4

of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

     Having regard to the facts and circumstances available on

record, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the
                                (2 of 2)

case, it is considered to be just and proper to grant anticipatory

bail to the petitioners.

     Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Smt. Sabba @

Kherunisha, (2) Smt. Uruba @ Seeba and (3) Sakir Ali in

connection with F.I.R. No.78/2016, registered at Women Police

Station, District Nagaur, the petitioners shall be released on bail;

provided each of them 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for
     interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without previous
       permission of the court.

                                           (SANDEEP MEHTA), J.


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Your email address will not be published.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