Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Narendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:2870) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:2870]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 202/2025
1. Narendra S/o Danwar Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Malawas, Pipar City , Dist Jodhpur
2. Parsram S/o Shiv Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Malawas, Pipar City , Dist Jodhpur
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
15/01/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 482 of BNSS / 438 CrPC 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 369/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Pipad City 3. District Jodhpur (Rural) 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 121(1), 132, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNSS 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of 23.12.2024 impugned order 2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:37:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2870] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-202/2025]
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.
5. The petitioners are rustic villagers and the entire family
members have been roped in it. They approached the victim for
redressal of their grievances, who happens to be Patwari of the
area. Since he persecuted the petitioners by not doing their
legitimate work, therefore, he was rebuked however just with a
view to spite the petitioners, he lodged the report with an
exaggerated version. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the embellishment and concoction made in the FIR
are blatant in light of the fact that in fact neither the complainant
was discharging his official duty nor he was deterred or prevented
while doing the official work, despite that Sections 132, 121 and
351 of BNS have been invoked. They are ready to cooperate with
the investigation. Present one is not a case where custodial
interrogation would be required. The offences are triable by a
Court of Magistrate and do not contain punishment of more than
seven years, in which, the judgment passed by Hon’ble the
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:37:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:2870] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-202/2025]
Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
[AIR 2014 SC 2756] applies squarely thus, this Court feels that
the benefit of pre-arrest bail should be extended to the
petitioners.
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
99-divya/-
(Downloaded on 20/01/2025 at 09:37:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)