1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1948/2009 Bhagirath Singh & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan with S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3554/2009 Manish vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 04.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for the petitioners. Mr. Virendra Singh Ba dhwar, for the complainant. Mr. Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Since both the aforesaid petitions filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., arise out of and pertain to FIR No. 116/2009 of police station Behror, District Alwar registered in the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, they are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has canvassed that the marriage of petitioner Manish was solemnized with Sunita on 08.05.2007 and since then, she has been living at Jaipur, as she prosecuted her studies in Rama Krishna Mahila Shikshak Training College, Jaipur. The petitioner Manish filed divorce petition in the court at Nagpur and to counter blast this petition, the complainant Sunita lodged the FIR against them on 03.03.2009. The petitioners are being falsely implicated. It is the complainant, who subjected the petitioner Manish to cruelty. It is not the 2 petitioner who subjected the complainant Sunita to cruelty and asked for dowry. Hence, the petitioners may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail primarily on the ground that the complainant lodged the FIR against as many as eight persons but the police has found the petitioners to be guilty for the offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC. The case is still pending investigation. The petitioners have deserted the complainant and asked for more and more dowry, hence, they should not be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, feel that it is a fit case wherein the petitioners can be granted anticipatory bail. 6. Therefore, the SHO/I.O. Of the Police Station Behror, District Alwar is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely Bhagirath Singh S/o. Kalu Ram; Shakuntala Devi W/o. Bhagirath Singh; and Manish S/o. Shri Bhagirath Singh in F.I.R. No. 116/2009 registered for offences under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC, he shall enlarge them on bail provided they furnishes personal bond each in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with surety bonds each in the like amount to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) They shall make themselves available for interrogation by Investigating Officer as and when required: (ii)He 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 to any Police 3 Officer; (iii)They shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. (iv)They will not commit any offence during the period of bail. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 23-24