PUSHPENDRASINGH S/O DALVEERSINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/8288/2024 · 2025-06-16
Ganesh Ram Meena
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23557 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23557 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:23261] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8288/2024
1. Pushpendrasingh S/o Dalveersingh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Gram Sinsini, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg.
2. Durgsingh S/o Rajendrasingh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gram Sinsini, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor & Mr. Devi Singh, Public Prosecutor Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary on behalf of Rahul Sinsinwar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA (V. J.)
Order 16/06/2025
1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.313/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 447 IPC.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused party and the complainant party both belongs same family. He also submits that the parties have also entered into a compromise and in such circumstances, sending the accused- petitioners in custody may not serve any purpose, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the present petitioners.
[2025:RJ-JP:23261] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8288/2024]
4.
Learned counsel for the complainant verify the fact of compromise between the parties.
5. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioners and so also the allegations made against the accused-petitioners and more particularly the fact that bot the parties belongs the same family and have also entered into a compromise, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioners in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be released on bail, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners 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 petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(GANESH RAM MEENA (V. J.)),J Ashish Kumar /184