Raj Kumar vs State, Through Pp

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2019, Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer for the offences under Sections 153-A, 295-A & 298 IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused Parasmal has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020 and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the co-accused who has already been enlarged on bail.

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail but failed to distinguish the case of the present petitioner vis-a-vis the coaccused person who has already been enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and considering the fact that co-accused , this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Raj Kumar S/o Shri Dungara Ram, in connection with F.I.R. No.263/2019, Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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.