1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6525/2009 Pushpa Sharma & ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 04.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Liyakat Ali, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. H.K. Sharma on behalf of Mr. Atul Jain, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Liyakat Ali Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 381/2008 of police station Sadar, District Bundi in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner No.3 Anup Sharma has been arrested by the police and his bail petition has become infructuous. 4. Hence, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Anup Sharma stands dismissed as having become infructuous. 5. So far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, learned counsel has canvassed that the main allegation of the complainant is that her husband Deepak Sharma stopped performing physical relationship with her, as a result of which, she complained to her mother-in-law but her mother-in-law asked her in reply to search 2 some other person, if she was so hunger of sex. Other allegations are omnibus in nature. No specific allegation with regard to cruelty or asking for dowry has been levelled in the complaint. Petitioner Prem Dev Sharma is a retired Railway employee and heart patient and the petitioner Pushpa Sharma is an old lady suffering from so many ailments. Hence, keeping in view their age, they may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail petition and contended that right from the day of their marriage, the complainant was subjected to cruelty and she was asked to bring more and more dowry. The complainant has been suffering both mental and physical hardship, hence, their bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view all the facts and circumstances in totality, do feel that it is a fit case wherein petitioners Pushpa Sharma and Prem Dev Sharma can be granted anticipatory bail and their bail petition is ordered to be allowed. 6. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Sadar, District Bundi is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely Pushpa Sharma W/o. Prem Dev; and Prem Dev Sharma S/o. Late Sh. Narshing Dev in FIR No. 381/2008 registered in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, he shall enlarge them on bail provided they furnishe personal bond each in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety bonds each in the like amount, to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- 3 (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii)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 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. (iv)They will not commit any offence during the period of bail. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- s-24