SB Crlmb No.8038/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.8038/2010. Rakesh Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 25, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Shandilya for the petitioner. Shri Peeyush Kumar Public Prosecutor for State. ****** Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the main allegation of causing injury in the attachment proceedings by recovery officer was against co-accused Ramswaroop Gurjar against whom decree of recovery was passed by the court. Petitioner is his relative and therefore, he was also made an accused along with him. Co- accused Ramswaroop Gurjar has already been granted the benefit of pre-arrest bail on 23/7/2010 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SB Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.6987/2010 on an Undertaking that he will settle the matter by paying the loan amount to the decree holder. Case of the petitioner stands on better footing than that of co-accused Ramswaroop Gurjar. SB Crlmb No.8038/10. 2 Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application but could not dispute the factual submissions made above. Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to extend the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. In the result, this anticipatory bail application u/S.438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Rakesh Gurjar S/o Shri Purshootam Gurjar, he be released by the S.H.O./I.O. in F.I.R. No.227/2010 P.S. Muhana, Jaipur City (East) for offence u/Ss.341, 332, 353, 336 and 109 IPC, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to his satisfaction with 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. anil