[2025:RJ-JP:13596] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1191/2025 1. Hariom S/o Brijlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Loko Masjid, Ward No. 08, Police Station Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Khelanta W/o Hariom, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near Loko Masjid, Ward No. 08, Police Station Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur. ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.219/2021 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 436, 427 and 504 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that after thorough investigation, police submitted negative final report. A protest petition was filed by the complainant before the trial Court. He further submits that learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offences [2025:RJ-JP:13596] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1191/2025] punishable under Sections 436, 427 and 504 of IPC. Initially, vide order dated 14.03.2024, summon was issued against the petitioners. But thereafter, without there being any plausible reason, issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners and the Police wants to arrest the petitioners in execution of the warrants. He argues that the petitioners are ready to join the trial. He further argues that warrant of arrest should not be issued straightway in routine manner. He places reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(3) SCC 321. He further contends that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this matter. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners; taking into account totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that initially, investigating agency has not found any involvement of the petitioners in the offences and negative final report was filed by the in the Court concerned and also considering the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of this anticipatory bail application with a direction that petitioners shall appear before the learned trial Court on or before 07.04.2025 and submit their bail bonds. Upon their surrender and furnishing bail bonds, learned trial Court is directed to accept bail bonds to his satisfaction. [2025:RJ-JP:13596] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1191/2025] 5. Till 07.04.2025, warrant of arrest issued against the petitioners shall be kept abeyance. In case the petitioners fail to appear before the learned trial Court on or before the given time, this order will come to end automatically. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/323