ANJNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the complainant, learned PP as also learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2 and perused the entire material made available to me.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint before learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate No. 4, Alwar against the respondent No. 2 and other family members. The learned Magistrate sent the aforesaid complaint under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure to S.H.O. Police Station Mahila Thana, Alwar for investigation. After receiving the aforesaid complaint S.H.O. Mahila Thana, Alwar registered an FIR No. 49/2008 for the offence under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.

(3.) Learned Counsel submits that on 21.7.2008 when this Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 made a statement that respondent No. 2 is ready to keep complainant petitioner Smt. Anjana and he is going together with her from the Court, which was also supported by Mr. B.N. Sandhu, learned PP assisted by Mr. Garg, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2. In the last the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 also submitted that if the respondent No. 2 fails to keep the complainant petitioner with him, then she is free to move an application for cancellation of bail. He further submits that after granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 2, the petitioner requested the respondent No. 2 to go with but he told that his near relative is hospitalized in the hospital and directed the petitioner to go at Alwar but he did not come at Alwar up-to till date. When the petitioner made call to the petitioner then respondent No. 2 gave reply that he is very busy and he will come soon. Respondent No. 2 also gave a threatening to the petitioner that if she files an application for cancellation of bail, then she will face great hardships. Lastly he submits that from the messages it is clear that the respondent No. 2 does not want to keep the petitioner with him. Thus, the anticipatory bail granted to accused respondent No. 2 be cancelled.