Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 385 (RAJ)

Surmanath v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-18

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.121/2019, Police Station Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh for the offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was a dispute with respect to hotel business between the petitioners and the complainant and therefore, the present F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioners only in order to take revenge. He further submits that the co-accused, namely, Ajaynath has already been enlarged on regular bail by the trial court itself vide Order dated 23.10.2019. He, therefore, prays that the present petitioner may also be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. 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 the petitioner is entitled for grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Surmanath S/o Lalnath Sapera, and (2) Ashok @ Shokeen S/o Ram Singh Rathore in connection with F.I.R. No.121/2019, Police Station Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh, they shall be released on bail; provided each of them 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 (out of which one of the surety will be of local) 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.