In this second anticipatory bail application, the High Court at Jodhpur rejected the plea on the ground that the petitioner had not joined the investigation after his prior application was dismissed.
The application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1315/2019
Mohammed Irfan S/o Mohammed Ismail, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Musalman, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Opposite Masjid, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
17/09/2019
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with FIR No. 93/2017 of Police Station, Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 409 IPC. He has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
This is second anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The first anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.08.2017 along with anticipatory bail application of Aalam Khan. The petitioner has filed this second anticipatory bail application on the ground that some other co-accused persons
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1315/2019]
have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court and therefore, the petitioner also deserves to get benefit of anticipatory bail.
Learned Pubic Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. After taking into consideration the fact that the first anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after granting him opportunity to join the investigation, which he has not joined, this Court is of the opinion that the second anticipatory bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is not maintainable.
Hence, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/80-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner, after his first application was dismissed for non-cooperation with investigation, is maintainable in law.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the circumstances raised in the application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Irfan S/o Mohammed Ismail
State
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
