SB Crlmb No.6950/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.6950/2010. Himanshu Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Surendra Sharma for the petitioner. Shri Laxman Meena 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 is against brother of petitioner, Priyanshu that he has eloped with the daughter of the complainant i.e. Ms.Chhavi. They were both classmates and were in love with each other. Family of the petitioner is helping the investigating agency and the complainant to trace them but so far they could not be located. There is no evidence whatsoever against the petitioner that he in any manner helped accused Priyanshu. Police is bent upon to arrest the petitioner for no fault of him. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to show any evidence against the petitioner for his involvement in the alleged offence. SB Crlmb No.6950/10. 2 Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail. 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 Himanshu S/o Shri Prem Bahadur in FIR No.248/2010 PS Kotwali, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar for offence u/Ss.363, 366 and 120-B IPC, he be released by the SHO/IO 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