IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6421/2010 Deepu Panchal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 20/07/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Bharat Saini for accused petitioners Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for the State ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for the accused petitioners is that a false criminal case has been registered against the petitioners, alleging that Deepu had gone to the shop of complainant and threatened him with dire consequences, if he gives evidence against petitioner Balmukund. It is contended that petitioner Balmukund has nothing to do with the incident and that his name has been added subsequently as is evident from the FIR and the statements of witnesses, namely Ramesh, Rajesh Porwal and Sunil Kumar, wherein a line has been added that Balmukund was also present with petitioner Deepu when he ransacked the complainant. Court below has declined bail to petitioners on the ground of pendency of cases. Learned counsel submitted that cases against Balmukund pertains to the years 1997, 2003 and 2005 and no case has been registered against him in the recent past. So far as petitioner Deepu is concerned, there is only one case pending against him. The petitioners were arrest on 26th April, 2010 and since then they have been in judicial custody. Challan has already been present in the Court and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. According to learned counsel, the petitioners under-take not to indulge themselves in any such offence in future. In this back-ground, learned counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Considering the rival submissions and without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail during trial. Resultantly, the bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Deepu Panchal S/O Shri Chandra Prakash and (2) Balmukund @ Balya S/O Shri Hanuman shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 214/2010 of P.S. Mahaveer Nagar, Kota City on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners are again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future, the bail granted to him by this court in the present case and in other pending cases, would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of the prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in the bail bonds produced by the petitioners, and the sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by the Tehsildar of the area concerned. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi