The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in an FIR involving IPC offences including Section 307 and 323, holding no cause for bail due to the serious nature of allegations and firearm injury to the complainant.
No anticipatory bail granted in F.I.R. No. 92/2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 10356/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Shri Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Shri R.S. Raghav, PP
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment / Order
25/10/2018
Petitioners have filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No. 92/2018 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 143, 323, 307 Indian Penal Code 1860.
Heard.
As per the prosecution story, petitioners and their co-accused had attacked the complainant. As a result complainant has suffered fire-arm injury. Petitioners are specifically named in the FIR.
Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioners, no ground for grant of anticipatory bail to them is made out.
Dismissed.
(SABINA)J.
MRG./32
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-10356/2018]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC given the severe nature of FIR offences including attempt to murder.
Whether the seriousness of allegations and nature of injuries sustained by the complainant negate the grounds for anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tahir S/o Juharu B/c Mev
Aamat S/o Kasam B/c Mev
State Of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
