Allowed

Arti W/O Pyarelal v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Nov 2021CRLMB/12237/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to four accused female petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case triable by a First Class Magistrate. The court imposed conditions including surrendering for interrogation, refraining from tampering with witnesses, not leaving India, and not committing similar offences, with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to conditions of interrogation, non-inducement of witnesses, no exit from India, and no new of

Arti W/O Pyarelal Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12237/2021

¶3

Arti W/o Pyarelal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Ukhlana P.S. Aligarh Dist. Tonk Raj.

¶4

Madarsi D/o Sharwan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vill. Ukhlana P.S. Aligarh Dist. Tonk Raj.

¶5

Manju D/o Sharwan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill. Ukhlana P.S. Aligarh Dist. Tonk Raj.

¶6

Swaroopi D/o Kaluram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Vill. Ukhlana P.S. Aligarh Dist. Tonk Raj.

¶7

----Accused-Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP Mr. Rajeev Surana and Mr. Sankalp Sogani for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶13

Order

¶14

10/11/2021

¶15

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR 82/2021 registered at P.S. Aligarh Distt. Tonk for the offences mentioned therein against the petitioners, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMB-12237/2021]

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material made available on record.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as they have nothing to do with the alleged incident. Petitioners Arti, Manju and Madarsi are even not named in the FIR. All the petitioners are ladies and petitioner Swaroopi is 60 years old. The alleged offences are triable by the First Class Magistrate. As per the direction of the Court, the petitioners joined the investigation.

¶20

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶21

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners, note of the allegations levelled against the petitioners as also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶22

Therefore, this bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Arti W/o Pyarelal, Madarsi D/o Sharwan, Manju D/o Sharwan and Swaroopi D/o Kaluram in the aforesaid FIR, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:

¶23

i) That the petitioner/s shall make himself/herself/themselves available for

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMB-12237/2021]

¶26

interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶27

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/her/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶28

iii) That the petitioner/s shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶29

iv) That the petitioner/s shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.

¶30

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶31

Ritu/62

Arti W/O Pyarelal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arti W/O Pyarelal v. the 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

Udairam Son of Shri Bhagatram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashwini @ Dilip S/O Kallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhu S/O Ramswaroop @ Radhey Shyam @ Kailash @ Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan

Khushiram Son of Mohan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rahul Soni Son of Jugal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Baldev Singh S/O Preetam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan