Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 65 (RAJ)

Asif Mugal v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-06

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 172/2019, Police Station Bidasar, District Churu for the offences under Sections 452, 354, 384 & 409 of I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 Asif Mugal and the complainant were having familiarity for last more than five years and were interacting with each other for all this time. The petitioners have not committed any kind of offence alleged against them in the F.I.R. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose 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 petitioners under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners (1) Asif Mugal S/o Rafiq and (2) Abid Silawat S/o Ayub in connection with F.I.R. No. 172/2019, Police Station Bidasar, District Churu 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 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.