CRLMB 1124/2010 Jagdish Vs. State (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur O R D E R In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.1124/2010 Jagdish Vs. State of Rajasthan Date Of Order :: 9th February, 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari Mr. Eliyas Ali, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor. .......... Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. It is stated that statement of prosecutrix has not been recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., however, in the statement recorded under section 161 of Cr.P.C. it has been stated that prosecutrix called Jagdish on telephone and thereupon she went with the accused. A dispute of 'nata' has been referred, thus, on account of that dispute false FIR has been lodged after delay, thus, petitioner may be granted bail. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is accepted and I consider it just and proper to release the accused-petitioner namely, Jagdish on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No.348/2009 registered at Police Station-Sadar, CRLMB 1124/2010 Jagdish Vs. State (2) Bundi for offence under section 366, 363 & 376 of IPC provided he, furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (M.N. Bhandari),J. VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A. S57