SB Crlmb No.8041/10. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.8041/2010. Rishipal Tyagi Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : August 25, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Sudhanshu Gupta 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 allegation against the petitioner is exactly the same which is against co-accused Hiralal Pujari. While originally, police gave final report in the first information report against both of them under the Indian Penal Code as also under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a petition was filed by the complainant whereupon, re-investigation was ordered and at that stage, co-accused Hiralal Pujari, who approached this Court and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court extended him benefit of anticipatory bail vide order dated 22/7/2010 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc.Bail Application No.6859/2010. SB Crlmb No.8041/10. 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 Rishipal Tyagi S/o Shri Omprakash Tyagi, he be released by the S.H.O./I.O. in F.I.R. No.309/2009 P.S. Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu for offence u/Ss.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 336, 323 and 504 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