BailAppl 1024/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1024/08 Narayan & Ors. Versus State DATE OF ORDER : 20/02/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Sudhir Jain, for accused-petitioners Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor *** Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. Present accused-petitioner Nos.1,2 & 3 are elder brothers of her father-in-law and No.4 is father-in-law and petitioner Nos.5,6,8 & 9 are brothers-in-law [Devar] and petitioner No.7 Ram Ratan is husband of prosecutrix Smt. Kali. Counsel contends that father of prosecutrix Ram Singh lodged FIR for kidnapping and abduction of her daughter on 6th September, 2007 in which it was alleged that 20-25 persons came to his house in two vehicles and abducted her daughter. From the narration made above, all are persons known to the family of complainant. Her statement was recorded u/s.161 Cr.P.C. on 22nd October, 2007 in which she came out with total different version than what was alleged by her father in complaint on which FIR was registered. But her statement was recorded u/s.164 Cr.P.C. in which also it was deposed by her that persons who came to abduct her BailAppl 1024/08 [2] in vehicle are not known but she may identify them if they are produced before her. Counsel further submits that after the complaint was filed by her father, she has filed a separate complaint u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act against complainant Ram Singh who is father of prosecutrix Smt. Kali wife of petitioner No.7 Ram Ratan and her paternal uncle and in Paras 4 & 5 it has been alleged by her that father & uncle wanted to sell her elsewhere and the complaint which was lodged by her father Ram Singh on 6th September, 2007 for offence u/ss.143, 323 & 366 IPC is completely false in which notices have been issued to them by the concerned court on 9th October, 2007. Taking note of overall facts situation and the relationship of accused-petitioners with prosecutrix Smt. Kali and so also her application which later on filed by her u/s.12 of Domestic Violence Act against her father [complainant], without expressing any opinion on merits, this court considers it appropriate to allow the pre- arrest bail to the accused-petitioners [Narayan, Dhuga Ram, Birbal, Sultan, Babu Lal @ Babbu, Harphool, Ram Ratan, Kailash & Ram Charan @ Ram Karan]. Accordingly, I allow the bail application of the petitioners U/s 438 Cr.P.C. and the SHO/IO of Police Station Thanagazi District Alwar is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners [Narayan, Dhuga Ram, Birbal, Sultan, Babu Lal @ Babbu, Harphool, Ram Ratan, Kailash & BailAppl 1024/08 [3] Ram Charan @ Ram Karan] in FIR No.98/07, he shall enlarge them on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to his satisfaction on the following conditions: (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when requires; (ii) They shall not directly 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. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA1024Bail Application2008 20-2.doc