IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.7557/2010. Hari Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Vijay Singh for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Fauzdar Public Prosecutor for State. ******
Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.
Contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that there is cross case between the parties and during the course of investigation, Sections 324 and 326 IPC have been added, on account of injury sustained by Jitendra.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that as per the statement of Jitendra, the allegation is against petitioner No.1-Hari Singh and Vijay Singh whereas, there is no allegation of causing injury to injured Jitendra against petitioner No.2 Bhuri Singh.
Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge petitioner No.1 Hari Singh on bail. His anticipatory bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is accordingly rejected. However, I am inclined to enlarge accused-petitioner No.2 Bhuri Singh on anticipatory bail.
In the result, this anticipatory bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner No.2-Bhuri Singh S/o Rajjo @ Rajendra in FIR No.91/2009 PS Chiksana District Bharatpur for offence u/Ss.143, 323, 341, 336, 379, 324 and 326 IPC, he be released by the SHO/IO on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction with the following conditions:
1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. 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
3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
anil