Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2536 (RAJ)

VIJENDRA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-11-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHURE

body2017
ORDER : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 337/2015, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu for the offences under Sections 302, 147 & 120-B IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the fact that police filed the negative final report in the matter. The cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate on the protest petition have been filed by the complainant. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that this Court in the revision petitions filed before this Court has converted the non-bailable warrants into bailable. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 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 petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973 5. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Vijendra S/o Jeevan Ram, Kramveer @ Ranveer S/o Shyokaran, Bulkesh S/o Karamveer, Sarbati W/o Govind Ram, Karishma @ Buli D/o Govind Ram and Pramila W/o Vijendra, in connection with F.I.R. No. 337/2015, Police Station Rajgarh District Churu, the petitioners shall be released on bail; provided they furnish 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.