Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jigar Patidar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27113) on 13 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27113]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4895/2025
Jigar Patidar S/o Shri Dhruv Shankar Patidar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Gadgadiya Mohalla, Raiyana, Police Station Arthuna,
District Banswara (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Raksha Patidar S/o Shri Manoj Patidar, aged about 27
Years, R/o Raiyana, Arthuna, Banswara (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jubin Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
13/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 36/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Arthuna 3. District Banswara 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 74, 333, 117(2), 115(2), 77/3(5) of B.N.S. 5. Offences added, if any --- 6. Date of passing of 16.04.2025 impugned order 2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27113] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4895/2025]
on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out
against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no
factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of
anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made
an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant
of anticipatory bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. Some
photographs depicting a scuffle between the parties on a public
road, which were taken from the footage of CCTV cameras
installed near the place of occurrence, have been placed on
record. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned
counsel Shri Jubin Mehta that a simple dispute had erupted
between the parties on the road, but the same has been
exaggerated and misrepresented in the FIR to aggravate the
situation and falsely implicate the accused. In light of the
photographs shown, prima facie, there appears to be force in the
submission of the learned counsel that the allegations of outraging
the modesty of the complainant’s wife are false. Be that as it may,
the present case is not one where custodial interrogation is
required or where any recovery is to be effected from the accused.
The injuries sustained are not dangerous to life and he is ready to
cooperate with the investigational course. Therefore, there
appears to be no necessity to arrest and incarcerate him.
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27113] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4895/2025]
5. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case,
it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present matter.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have
been given in tabular form above, he 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 to the
satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(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
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
131-Love/-
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)