1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6648/2009 Manjit Shastri & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 03.09.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. M.M. Ranjan, for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. B.N. Sandu, for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri M.M. Ranjan Advocate on behalf of the applicants pertaining to F.I.R. No. 122/2009 at police station Sindhi Camp, Jaipur, in the offences under Sections 384 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution in nub is that: On 10.06.2009, the person, who identified himself to be Vikram Singh Tanwar, came to the complainant and asked her to give her a copy of indentity card and ration card as some unknown person, who could be a terrorist also, was using her mobile sim card. Thereafter, he went out of the house and returned with three more associates. One of those persons aimed pistol at her head and asked her to sign 2 a document and obtained her signatures under threat. They also threatened her to withdraw the suit pertaining to the property of her deceased husband Bhupendra Singh, which she had filed against her husband's brother Kulwant Singh and his wife at Kaithal. They threatened that if she did not withdraw the suit within ten days, she will be done to death. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that they are being falsely implicated and are in no way connected with the commission of the offences of the instant case. One civil suit of the complainant is said to be pending in Haryana. One person is alleged to have telephoned the complainant and threatened her, but so far as the petitioners are concerned, they are innocent and are in no way connected with the alleged offences of the instant case, hence, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State have vehemently opposed the bail petition and contended that the act of the petitioners was shocking and terrifying. The petitioners hail from Haryana and came to Jaipur to obtain complainant's signatures at the instance of Manjit Singh Shastri. The main accused Manjit Singh Shastri has yet not been arrested in this case nor that document/'valuable security' has been recovered. The petitioners are involved in a grave nature of offence, hence, their bail petition may be dismissed. 6. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case 3 but keeping in view the gravity of offences and the manner in which the offence is found to have been committed, do not deem it just and proper to grant indulgence of bail to the accused petitioners. 7. In the result, the bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioners under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 19