Shoaib Khan vs State Of Rajasthan

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.248/2016 of Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 386, 420, 120-B and 143 IPC. They have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted on behalf of petitioner-Shoaib Khan that there is no dispute about the fact that the original owner Fatima has sold the shops, in which the complainant and other persons are tenants to petitioner-Shoaib Khan. It is argued that the allegation of threatening and extorting money against petitioner-Shoaib Khan are false. It is also submitted that petitioner-Shoaib Khan has already joined the investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted on behalf of petitioner-Nitin that petitioner-Nitin is the attesting witness in the agreement, entered into between the complainant-Lali Bai and Shoaib Khan. It is argued that it is not the case of complainant that the said agreement has not been executed.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners - Shoaib Khan S/o Gulsher Khan and Nitin S/o Chandra Prakash Jain in FIR No.248/2016 of Police Station Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh they shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on the following conditions:-

(i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) They 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 to any Police Officer;

(iii) They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.