Allowed

Hanuman Sahay Meena S/O Shri Suja v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Nov 2020CRLMB/6887/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. regarding an FIR for 498A, 420, and 1208 IPC offences, noting a divorce agreement and compromise between the petitioners and the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail applications allowed; SHO/IO/Arresting Officer directed to release petitioners on bail with two sureties upon arrest.

Hanuman Sahay Meena S/O Shri Suja Vs State of Rajasthan — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6886/2020

¶3

Sushil Kumar Meena S/o Hanuman Sahay, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 46-47 Pooja Market Hasanpura-A N.B.C. Road Jaipur (West) Raj .

¶4

Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through %w PP. zl%
r 4s L-IfGt,
----Respondent
4% ' '%%& * Connected With - 2%
Sahay Meena S/o Shri Suja, Aged Abo
Years, R/o 46-47
----Petitioners
State Of Rajasthan, Thr
----Respondent

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Thr
For Petitioner(s)
For Respondent(s)

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶7

Order

¶8

19/11/2020

¶9

1. The present anticipatory bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.51/2020 registered at Mahila Thana (East), Rajasthan for the offence(s) - under Section 498A, 420 & 1208 of IPC.

¶10

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioner Sushil Kumar Meena and his wife Sunan Manatwal arrived at a compromise and they had written divorce agreement on 17.10.2019. After that, the said agreement was recognized by Rajasthan Adivasi Meena Sewa Sang h on 14.10.2019. Thereafter, complainant Sunan Manatwal filed declaration suit before Family Court No.1, Jaipur for seeking

¶11

divorce. After re

¶12

decree of di 7.01.2020. After th nst the petitioner and Rs.5 Kumar Meena for permanent Suman Manatwal. As Der --- mement, petitioner had also returned the dowry nt. So, no custody interrogation is requ o, the petitioners be

¶13

sel for the complainant have opposed the argum&t y learned counsel for the petitioners and submit@ rs had obtained fake ewa Sangh and FIR well as convener of the institution. Complains iew petition before the Family Court, Jaipur for reviewing the order of divorce. Petitioner had deposit the money of permanent alimorty in the joint name of petitioner and complainant and then he had withdrawn the said arnount. So, anticipatory bail be rejected. 4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the

¶14

case, this court deems it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail applications.

¶15

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Mahila Thana (East), Rajasthan in FIR No.51/2020 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Sushil Kumar Meena S/o Hanuman Sahay, Hanuman Sahay Meena S/o Shri Suja and Smt. Gayatri Devi W/o Hanuman released on bail,

¶16

ith two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,

¶17

Police Station on the

¶18

(i) that the peti elves available for

¶19

interrogation by a poli

¶20

(ii) that the petitione or indirectly make any inducement, threat rson acquainted with the facts of the case so disclosing such facts to the court or any (iii) that the petition ndia without previous permission of the cou

¶21

6. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶22

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Hanuman Sahay Meena S/O Shri Suja v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Sahay Meena S/O Shri Suja 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

Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Aslam S/O Ahmad Bux Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Shri Baluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Tirupati Nandan Damani S/O Sh. Girdhari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil Kumar Meena S/O Hanuman Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu S/O Rami Vs State of Rajasthan