Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 215 (RAJ)

Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-17

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No. 288/2018 of Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 504 and 34 IPC and Section 11 and 12 of POSCO Act. They have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the victim in her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. simply said that the petitioners have caught hold her hand and hair. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the petitioners have touched the private parts of the victim. It is also submitted that now the compromise have also been arrived at between the parties. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application, however, learned counsel for the complainant has verified that the parties have entered into compromise. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the case diary, 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. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners - (1) Ramchandra S/o Amarchand and (2) Pawan Kumar S/o Kalu Ram in FIR No. 288/2018 of Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh 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.