Allowed

Saroj Devi W/O Amrit Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Oct 2022CRLMB/1349/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail applications filed by three accused in FIR No. 58/2021, holding that the dispute was matrimonial in nature. The Court made an earlier interim protection order absolute, noting the complainant had been declared hostile in earlier proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicants to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Saroj Devi W/O Amrit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1343/2022

¶3

Prince Choudhary S/o Amrit Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gram Hantra, Tehsil Nandbai, District Bharatpur Present Resident At B 75 Vestway Hight, Narayan Vihar, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1349/2022

¶10

Saroj Devi W/o Amrit Singh, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Gram Hantra, Tehsil Nandbai, District Bharatpur Present Resident At B 75 Vestway Hight, Narayan Vihar, Jaipur.

¶11

Poonam Choudhary W/o Rohit Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 24, Brij Vihar Colony, Madhurpur Road, Bharatpur, Rajasthan

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, Adv. For State (s) : Mr. S. S. Mehla, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Adv. for : Mr. Amin Ali, Adv.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶18

Order

¶19

11/10/2022

¶20

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 58/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Police Station (south), District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504 IPC.

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-1343/2022]

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has submitted that marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the complainant in the year 2013. Learned counsel has relied upon the statements of PW5 in the erstwhile matter No. 837/2016, wherein complainant was declared hostile against her own complaint. Learned counsel has further submitted that lis in question pertains to matrimonial dispute. Vide order dated 14.02.2022 interim protection was granted to the applicants which has continued till date. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has submitted that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping this application pending any longer.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. However, learned counsel for the complainant was not able to refute the statements of the complainant dated 20.11.2017 in the erstwhile matter.

¶25

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the parties, considering that the dispute is matrimonial in nature and considering the fact that interim order was granted on 14.02.2022 which has continued till date, this court deems it appropriate to make the order dated 14.02.2022 absolute and allow the anticipatory bail applications.

¶26

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications are allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Mahila Police Station (south), District Jaipur in F.I.R. No. 58/2021 is directed that in the event of arrest of the accused-applicants 1.Prince Choudhary S/o Amrit Singh 2. Saroj Devi W/o Amrit Singh

¶27

and 3. Poonam Choudhary W/o Rohit Kumar , they shall be

¶28

released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond

¶29

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1343/2022]

¶30

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of

¶31

Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶33

(ii) 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

¶34

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

¶35

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶36

Pooja /137-138

Saroj Devi W/O Amrit Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saroj Devi W/O Amrit Singh 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

Ravi @ Mota S/O Daulatram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabir S/O Sukka Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Amarchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Prince Choudhary S/O Amrit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul S/O Shri Roshanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjilal Verma S/O Late Shri Ramsukhlal Vs State of Rajasthan