1 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.3232/2007 [SHIV NARAYAN & ORS. VS. STATE] DATED 19.07.2007 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.S.S.Jodha for the petitioners. Mr. Ashok Upadyaya, P.P. ***** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the case diary. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that disputed land is in possession of the accused petitioners as the same was purchased by accused party in the Year 1999 from the complainant party and a revenue suit was filed by one of the accused namely Nimba Ram against Kana Ram and others, the complainant party in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Pipar City, Jodhpur and in which order of injunction has been granted in favour of the accused party and against the complainant party vide order dated 15.01.2007. The dispute is with regards to the way. I have gone through the statement of some of the prosecution witnesses namely Smt.Shanti, Jeevan Ram, Raju Ram, Smt. Raju Devi etc. all these witnesses categorically stated 2 that there was a quarrel with regards to the way and neither of “toti, Madalia or kanthi” [jewelery] alleged to have been on person of Smt.Rami have been snatched nor taken away by any of the accused petitioners. The witnesses further stated that there had not been any such occurrence taking such articles a by any of the accused persons. Some of the accused persons named herein were not even present at the place of occurrence as stated by these prosecution witnesses. Be that as it may, since the occurrence has taken place on disputed land which is owned and possessed by petitioners and there is an injunction order in favour of the accused persons passed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Pipar city, Jodhpur and, the occurrence as stated by the complainant has not taken places as per the prosecution witnesses noticed above, in my view it is just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioners. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the oral arguments advanced by both the parties, I consider it just and proper to allow the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 3 Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners [1] Shiv Narayan S/o Shri Nimba Ram, [2] Bhera Ram S/o Nimba Ram [3] Janki W/o Bhanwaroo Ram [4] Samuri W/o Chetan Ram [5] Bhanwaroo Ram S/o Idan Ram and [6] Chetan Ram S/o Idan Ramin FIR No. 75/2007 P.S. Bhopalgarh they shall be released on bail for a period till the police concludes the investigation and files the challan provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- alongwith one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of Investigating Officer to surrender and appear before the trial court on the date of filing of the challan after conclusion of the investigation on the following conditions:- (i)That they shall make herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii)That 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 their from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and; [iii] That they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. [H.R.PANWAR],J. MAMTA