Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 251 (RAJ)

Pawan Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-02-01

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2018, Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City West for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 & 354 IPC 3. The complainant's marriage was solemnized with the petitioner about 18 years ago. The complainant filed the FIR by arraigning the petitioner Pawan Kumar, Madan Lal and Bhanwari Devi as accused in this case, out of whom, the accused Pawan Kumar and Madan Lal approached this Court by filing a Criminal Misc. Petition (No.993/2018) wherein the proceedings of the FIR has been quashed by this Court by order dated 05.01.2021 qua the accused Madanlal and Smt. Bhanwari Devi. 4. Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that there is no requirement for custodial interrogation of the accused petitioner in this case and it is a fit case to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Madanlal in connection with F.I.R. No.27/2018, Mahila Police Station, Jodhpur City West, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes 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 petitioner(s) shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner(s) 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(s) shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.