SB Crlmb No.8021/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.8021/2010. Mahipal Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : September 15, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sunil Kumar representative of petitioner. Shri Hari Kishan Sharma, representative of PP office. ****** Shri Sunil Kumar, younger brother of petitioner present in court. Petitioner has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail on the premise that he has been falsely implicated in the present case inasmuch as, complainant/informant neither named him in the first information report nor in his initial statements recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. on 4/11/2009. By way of improvement in the case, name of the petitioner was for the first time introduced when supplementary statement (titamba bayan) of complainant was recorded on 29/3/2010. It is contended that other several witnesses whose statements were recorded after 2-3 days of the alleged incident have also not named the petitioner. Accused Vikas and Jitendra, who were named in the first information report in the initial statements of complainant-Amit Kumar and other witnesses, have been extended benefit of SB Crlmb No.8021/10. 2 anticipatory bail. Case of the petitioner stands on better footing than that of Vikas and Jitendra. No specific role has been assigned to the petitioner whereas, what is alleged is that those accused named in the first information report pelted stones at the shop of the complainant and the assertion made that one of the accused namely; Jitendra was not involved is totally false. Representative of the Public Prosecutor office produced the case diary. On perusal of the case diary, it is revealed that name of the petitioner was not specifically mentioned either in the first information report or even in the initial statements of complainant-Amit Kumar recorded u/S.161 Cr.P.C. On the very next date of the alleged incident, police statements of other several witnesses were also recorded and at the relevant point of time, they have also not named the petitioner whereas, co-accused Vikas and Jitendra have been named specifically in both the statements of complainant and other witnesses yet, they have been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. Having regard to the facts aforesaid and considering all other facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory 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 SB Crlmb No.8021/10. 3 Mahipal S/o Shri Subhash in FIR No.383/2009 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu for offence u/Ss.141, 336, 307 and 120B IPC & Section 27 of the Arms Act, he be released on bail by the S.H.O./I.O. 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