// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR ORDER In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3029/2009 {Arun Versus The State of Rajasthan} Date of Order ::: 22nd July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Sandeep Mehta, counsel for the petitioner Shri Anees Bhurat, PP for the State of Rajasthan #### By the Court: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that co-accused Smt. Premlata has been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., therefore, bail application of the present petitioner may also be considered and allowed. The learned PP opposed the bail application. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is husband of complainant, whereas Smt. Premlata is mother-in-law, therefore, case of petitioner cannot be similar with the case of // 2 // co-accused. I have also considered the reasons assigned by the Sessions Judge, Udaipur for rejecting the bail application of the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to allow this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., hence the same is dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. //DK//