Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4394 (RAJ)

CHHUTTAN LAL S/O KALUAA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/1078/2025 · 2025-02-03

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:4772] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1078/2025 1. Chhuttan Lal S/o Kaluaa, R/o Dadeli Ki Jhonpadi, Tan Gajjupura, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 2. Seemabai W/o Chhuttanlal, R/o Dadeli Ki Jhonpadi, Tan Gajjupura, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 3. Kumari Neelam D/o Chhuttan Lal, R/o Dadeli Ki Jhonpadi, Tan Gajjupura, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Fateh Ram Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor Mr. Sandeep Bansiwal and Mr. Shubham Garg for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/02/2025 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.395/2024, registered at Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352 & 189(2) of B.N.S. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused- petitioner No.3- Kumari Neelam has lodged an FIR at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli as regards the incident alleged to have taken place on 11.04.2024 which was registered as FIR No.229/2024 for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354 & 452 [2025:RJ-JP:4772] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1078/2025] of IPC with the allegations that one Pankhilal who is the complainant in the present case was threatening her of kidnapping because he says that he loves her and when he tried to misbehave with her it was objected by her family members. However, the complainant party came to their house and made attack on family members of the petitioner No.3 in regard to which FIR No.396/2024 was lodged by the accused party on 31.10.2024 at Police Station Sapotra, District Karauli. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that so as to counter the case lodged by the petitioners’ party against the complainant party, the present case has been lodged against the petitioners’ party and their family members. Counsel further submits that in the present case two of the petitioners are women and the injuries sustained by the complainant party are no bone injuries. Therefore, the petitioners may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this anticipatory bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in FIR No.229/2024 lodged by the accused party, the Police after through investigation has found the allegations made therein to be false. 5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and more particularly the fact that two of the petitioners are women and there is no injuries sustained by the complainant which have been found to be grievous in nature, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the [2025:RJ-JP:4772] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1078/2025] case, deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli in F.I.R. No.395/2024 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners they shall be released on bail, provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction 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),J Satyendra/42