Panna Lal And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No.6 Shankar Lal arrested during the pendency of the present bail application, therefore, bail

application qua the accused-petitioner Shankar Lal has become infructuous.

In view of the above, bail application moved on behalf of the accused-petitioner No.6 Shankar Lal is dismissed as having become infructuous.

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.229/2020, Police Station

Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 143, 448, 323, 354 of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is civil litigation pending between the parties for dispute of land and injunction was granted in

favour of the accused-petitioners; name of the petitioners No.2 Anshu, No.3 Deepak and No.5 Manoj have not been mentioned in the FIR; accused-

petitioner No.1 Panna Lal is 80 years old; injury was attributed to co-accused Rakesh @ Raka who is not before this Court; both the parties belong to

the same family. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.

On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly looking to the age of petitioner No.1 Panna Lal who is 80 years

old, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1 Panna Lal under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail application qua the petitioner No.1- Panna Lal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner No.1 Panna Lal

S/o Madho Ji, in connection with F.I.R. No.229/2020, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided

he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating

Officer/S.H.O. 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.

So far as petitioners No.2 Anshu, No.3 Deepak, No.4 Rakesh and No.5 Manoj are concerned, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the

case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to accused-petitioners Anshu, Deepak, Rakesh and

Manoj, therefore, the bail application qua them is hereby rejected. However, if the accused-petitioners Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 surrender before the learned

trial Court and file regular bail application, trial Court is directed to consider and decide the regular bail application of the petitioners on the very same

day.