Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 168 (RAJ)

Satpal v. State

2020-01-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking correction in the order dated 08/01/2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14727/2019 (Satpal vs. The State of Rajasthan). 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed an antipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. but due to typographical error, in the order dated 08/01/2020 the bail application has been allowed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. instead of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The order dated 08/01/2020 is corrected and shall read as under :- 'This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.278/2019, Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 354, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 of IPC. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, 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. 6. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Satpal S/o Het Ram, in connection with F.I.R. No.278/2019, Police Station Nohar, District Hanumangarh , the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner 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 shall not leave India without previous permission of the court."