1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Cr. Misc Third Bail Application No.7380/2010 Satish Kumar Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 6.8.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr SK Jain - for the petitioner Mr Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor Mr Vijay Kumar Sharma – for complainant Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case has been registered against the petitioner by the complainant out of some quarrel between them. He never married to complainant. Thus offence under section 498-A and 406 IPC has wrongly been alleged against him. There exist no injury or the act which may make out a case under section 307 IPC and even no material is there to make out a case under section 379 IPC. Thus, he may be granted anticipatory bail. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He submits that car No. RJ 14 CG 4873 was purchased by the complainant but the same has been stolen by the petitioner thus case under section 379 IPC is made 2 out. Petitioner married to the complainant and remained together for the last ten years. Thus, he may not be granted benefit of anticipatory bail. If he is granted bail, then he may be directed to handover the car to the complainant. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the car is not with the petitioner and he has no claim over it. After taking into consideration rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect the outcome of the trial, but looking to the facts of this case, I allow bail application of petitioner under section 438 CrPC. Therefore, the SHO/IO of the Police Station – Murlipura, Jaipur is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Satish Kumar Saini in FIR No.276 /2010 registered for offence under Section/s 498-A, 406, 497, 307, 379, 323 and 341 IPC, he shall enlarge him on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i)He shall make himself available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required; 3 (ii)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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; (iii)He shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (iv)He shall not commit same and similar offence during the period of bail. The IO of the case is, however, directed to investigate into the matter as to whether car is with the petitioner party and if it is found that it is with the accused party then, in that case, this bail order may be treated as cancelled and petitioner can be arrested in that case. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma