Allowed

Harmender Pal @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2019CRLMB/5518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application on behalf of petitioner 2, rejecting the petition on behalf of petitioner 1 as not pressed. The relief was granted subject to a personal bond and specific conditions regarding interrogation and travel.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, subject to standard conditions.

Harmender Pal @ Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5518/2019

¶3

Harmender Pal @ Hanuman S/o Sh. Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Jat , R/o Mahadev Colony , Balotora , P.s. Balotara, Distt. Barmer

¶4

Rajendra Kumar S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Jat , R/o Mahadev Colony , Balotora , P.s. Balotara, Distt. Barmer

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶11

Order

¶12

27/08/2019

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶14

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.0006/2019 Bijrad, District Barmer for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 406 and 354 of I.P.C.

¶15

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he does not want to press the anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner No.1 Harmender Pal @ Hanuman S/o Rajendra Kumar, therefore, the bail application preferred on behalf of him is rejected as not pressed.

¶16

So far as the bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-5518/2019]

¶19

No.2 Rajender Kumar S/o Laxman Ram is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is father-in-law of the complainant and allegations of demand of dowry and outraging her modesty levelled against him are false. It is argued that as a matter of fact, there is some matrimonial dispute between son of the petitioner Harmender Pal @ Hanuman and his wife which resulted into some quarrel then his daughter-in-law has filed this complaint against his son while falsely implicating him and his wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that marriage of the son of the petitioner was solemnized with the complainant in the year 2009, however, no such complaint about behaviour of the petitioner was ever made to anybody and now the false allegations of demand of dowry and outraging modesty have been levelled by the complainant against the petitioner.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the case diary, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Accordingly, this bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner No.2 Rajendra Kumar S/o Laxman Ram under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of his arrest in FIR No.0006/2019 Bijrad, District Barmer, he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-5518/2019]

¶25

each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the

¶26

following conditions:-

¶27

(i) He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

¶28

(ii) He 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 to any Police Officer;

¶29

(iii) He shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.

¶30

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶31

56-Babulal/-

Harmender Pal @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmender Pal @ Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Kumar Karan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Vs State of Rajasthan

Lucky Garg Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumandar Singh Vs State

Akram Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhdev Singh Vs State