IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.7678/2010 Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 25/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rakesh Chandel for the petitioner. Shri Piyush Kumar, P.P. 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 petitioner is that no specific role has been assigned to the petitioner, inasmuch as the sole grievous injury has been assigned to co-accused Phool Chand. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on consideration of the above fact, was persuaded to grant anticipatory Bail to c0-accused Pintu vide order dated 13.7.2010 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4918/2010. Case of the present petitioner is exactly similar to that of co-accused Pintu as the complainant has merely stated presence of the petitioner and c0-accused Pintu at the place of incident, without assigning any role. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to dispute the factual correctness of the submissions made above. Having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the materials collected so far during the course of investigation and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In the result, this bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Vindod Kumar S/O Shri Madan Lal in FIR No.35/2010, P.S. Ajeetgarh, district Sikar, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with two sureties of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: - 1) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2) that the petitioner 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 any police officer; and 3) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi