Allowed

Haneef Khan and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC27 Apr 2017CRLMB/5501/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to petitioners in an FIR registered under IPC sections 147, 365, 368, 506, 195-A, and 120-B. The court imposed standard conditions including joining investigation and obtaining permission before leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; petitioners admitted to bail if arrested subject to satisfaction of arresting officer.

Haneef Khan and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 5501 / 2017

¶3

Haneef Khan S/o Shri Sumeer Khan B/c Mev, R/o Gram Gada Jan Police Station Kama Distt. Bharatpur Rajasthan

¶4

Jahul S/o Shri Kamruddin B/c Mev, R/o Gram Chiroli Distt. Nuhu Mewat Tehseel Punhana Haryana

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Baisla-P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Order

¶12

27/04/2017

¶13

Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 400/2014 registered at Police Station Roopbas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) for offences under Sections 147, 365, 368, 506, 195-A, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioner No. 2 is not named in the FIR. Infact, the FIR in question had been lodged with a view to seek cancellation of bail granted to Jalish son of the petitioner No. 1 in another FIR registered under Section 376 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Petition moved by the complainant party for cancellation of bail granted to accused Jalish in the rape case was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2016. Initially, negative final report was

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-5501/2017]

¶17

prepared by the Investigating Agency. However, now after the change of Investigating Officer, petitioner is being sought to be arrested. Statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded in the rape case. Petitioner No. 1 is aged about seventy five years. Petitioners are ready to join investigation.

¶18

Learned State Counsel on the other hand has opposed the petition.

¶19

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶20

Accordingly without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest, petitioners be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. Petitioners shall join investigation as and when required by police and shall not leave the country without permission of the court. Petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶21

Sudha/20

Haneef Khan and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haneef Khan and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Sher Mohd. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dharm Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Tej Karan Pareta Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Prem Singh @ Lalla Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Deshraj Gurajar andANR Vs State Labour Depors