- (1.) Heard the parties.
(2.) The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with P.C.R. Case No. 12/2009, corresponding to T.R. No. 141 of 2015, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case as a counter blast to Meharma (Belbadda) P.S. Case No. 02/09 instituted by the petitioner no. 1 against the husband of the complainant just a day prior to the institution of the present case. It has further been submitted that no summons or notice were ever served upon the petitioners and merely because process under section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued, the same cannot be a ground to refuse anticipatory bail. In this context, learned senior counsel has referred to the case of Mahendra Kumar Ruiya Vs. State of Jharkhad & Anr., 2013 3 JLJR 407, wherein it has been held that proper compliance of Section 82 Cr.P.C. is very much essential. It has been submitted that in view of the said judgement, and in view of the fact that there has been no compliance prior to issuance of process under section 82 Cr.P.C., the present application is maintainable.;