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.7473/2006 Harchand Vs. State of Rajasthan Date Of Order :: 5th December, 2006 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. Rambabu Sharma, counsel for petitioner. Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor for State. .................... Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material produced during the course of arguments. Learned counsel for accused petitioner contended that he has falsely been implicated in this matter and even according to the prosecution case co-accused Subhash inflicted one injury on the head of the injured Pappu and the case of the present accused petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Ganga Sahai who has been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail by this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Without making any observations on merits, having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, nature of accusation, material on record, all other facts and circumstances and also keeping in view that it is not alleged that the accused petitioner caused the head injury to injured Pappu and the case of the present accused petitioner does not appear to be distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Ganga Sahai who has already been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail by this Court, I deem it proper to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to accused petitioner Harchand. In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Harchand S/o. Punyaram, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer in FIR No.240/2006 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Sikar provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties each in the sum of Rs.5,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer on the following conditions :- 1. that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that he 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer; and 3. that he shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (J.R. Goyal),J VS Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A.