1 S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5548/2009 Sanjeev Chawada Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 10th November 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Sandeep Mehta for the petitioner. Mr.M.A.Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. Mr.H.M.Saraswat for the complainant ... The petitioner, accused of offences under Sections 376, 384, 323 IPC in FIR No.190/2009 Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur, has moved this application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The FIR aforesaid has been registered on the complaint made by the prosecutrix, said to be 23 years in age, on 30.09.2009 essentially on the allegations that the petitioner developed acquaintance and then intimacy with her; that the petitioner proposed her for marriage but she declined such a proposition particularly because they belonged to different castes; that upon her so declining, the petitioner got enraged and got prepared her obscene clipping and threatened and then blackmailed her with reference to such clipping; and that he would beat her mercilessly and did also cut the veins of her left hand. It has further been alleged that the petitioner has been maligning her and suggesting other persons about herself being in love with him. It has also been 2 alleged that the petitioner took over her engineering mark- sheet, birth card, licence photo copy etc. and did not return while again putting the threat of such clipping. It has also been stated that the petitioner would obtain the SIM of phone in her name and would abuse on being denied to do so. It has also been alleged that the petitioner would threaten her of having 2-3 clippings and distributing the same to the others. It has further been alleged that the petitioner is presenting himself as medical practitioner without having the requisite degree. According to the prosecutrix, the petitioner forced her in physical relation and even forced her to abort the pregnancy 6-7 times. In relation to this FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 30.09.2009 and is in custody since then. Upon filing of this bail application, the learned Public Prosecutor was granted time to procure the case diary and on the earlier occasion, when after examining the case diary this Court exprexssed prima facie dissatisfaction about the progress in the investigation, the Public Prosecutor prayed for and was granted time to call the Investigating Officer who did appear; and it was submitted that for the personal difficulties of the Investigating Officer, for his son suffering from serious ailment, substantial progress could not be made in the 3 investigation. So far the petitioner is concerned, it appears that at request, he was allowed to be taken on police remand until 07.10.2009. It is not in dispute that no recovery as such has been effected from the petitioner whether of the alleged clippings or of the alleged documents. It was definitely required of the investigating agency to have proceeded with the matter with reasonable expedition and in any case, this Court does not feel satisfied that the matter has simply been kept pending in investigation without substantial and concrete progress. In case of any personal difficulty of the Investigating Officer, it was always expected of the concerned authority to hand over further investigation to any other officer. Apart from the aforesaid, looking to the nature of accusation and after examining the material as available on the case diary including the statement of the prosecutrix and some of her colleagues, without any comments on merits, this Court does not find it just and proper to continue with the detention of the petitioner any further in custody. However, looking to the nature of accusation and the overall circumstances, it is required to be, and is, made clear that while on bail, the petitioner shall specifically refrain from 4 contacting the prosecutrix or any other person acquainted with the facts of the case and would not try to intimidate or influence any of the relevant person related with this case. It is further enjoined upon the petitioner that he shall not, without specific permission of the Court, leave the City of Jodhpur until filing of the result of investigation and shall attend every date fixed in the matter without fail. The stipulations aforesaid shall be distinctly mentioned in the bail bonds to be furnished by the petitioner. Subject to the requirements aforesaid, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Sanjeev Chawada s/o Khemchand be released on bail in relation to FIR No.190/2009 Police Station, Mahila Thana, Jodhpur provided he executes the requisite personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever and wherever called upon to do so till the completion of trial. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK