Allowed

Kamalkishore Prajapat S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Dec 2022CRLMB/2410/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, charged under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC, submitted that a compromise was settled leading to a negative final report. Despite opposition citing non-cooperation, the court granted bail without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail; to be released on bail if arrested, upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

Kamalkishore Prajapat S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2410/2022

¶3

Kamalkishore Prajapat S/o Sh. Jagdish Prasad, R/o House No. 315 Ward No. 25 Ramnath Wali Gali Shikarpur Road Durgapuri Colony Ganeshpura Muraina M.P.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Lamba, Advocate with Mr. Vijay Yadav, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Mr. Ram Chandra Sharma, Advocate for complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶10

Order

¶11

06/12/2022

¶12

This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 06/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Jaipur (North) for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Investigating Agency has filed a negative final report on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties and from bare perusal of the compromise it is clear that the complainant has already received all her dowry articles from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant has again filed an another FIR No.145/2018 against the petitioner and the Investigating Agency has also filed a final report in negative form.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-2410/2022]

¶16

Hence, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may kindly be granted.

¶17

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. It is submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that in the present FIR, during further investigation by the concerned Investigating Officer offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC have been found against the petitioner and he is not cooperating in the investigation. Learned counsel further submits that maintenance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is due against the petitioner. Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, bail application of the petitioner may kindly be rejected.

¶18

Heard learned counsel and perused the material available on record.

¶19

In the present FIR No.06/2017, negative final report has been submitted by the Police on the ground of misunderstanding. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 11.07.2017, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2144/2017 (Kamal Kishor Prajapati Vs. State & Anr.) seeking quashing of FIR No.06/2017 (present FIR) had ordered that the petition has become infructuous as negative final report has been prepared by the Investigating Agency in view of compromise effected between the parties. The complainant has again filed an another FIR No.145/2018 against the petitioner and after investigation, the Investigating Agency has submitted negative final report in the same. The petitioner has been given interim protection from arrest by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-2410/2022]

¶22

26.05.2022, which is still in force till today. Therefore, considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the above facts & circumstances of the case but; without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶23

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the accused-petitioner in FIR No. 06/2017 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Jaipur (North) by the Investigating Officer, the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/each (out of which one surety shall be resident of Jaipur Metro or Jaipur District) to the satisfaction of concerned SHO/IO on the following conditions:

¶24

i) That the petitioner will make himself available for the investigation as and when required by the investigation officer.

¶25

ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶26

iii) That the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence or threaten or pressurize the witnesses in the case.

¶27

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶28

Ashish Kumar /60

Kamalkishore Prajapat S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamalkishore Prajapat S/O Sh. Jagdish Prasad 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

Nandaram Son of Devaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Labesh Sharma S/O Shri Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Tamboli S/O Late Shri Suresh Tamboli Vs State of Rajasthan

Tosif Khan S/O Jameel Khal Vs State of Rajasthan

Firoza D/O Shri Matlub Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Singh Son of Shri Shadiram Vs State of Rajasthan