Disposed

Bajranglal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Jan 2019CRLMP/356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking to quash FIR and stay investigation by granting protection from arrest with a 15-day notice requirement before any arrest, upon the Public Prosecutor's assurance to consider a representation.

What did the court decide?

Stay on investigation conditioned on submission of representation within 10 days; protection from arrest granted with 15 days notice before arrest.

Bajranglal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 356/2019

¶3

Bajranglal S/o Tulsiram Mantri, Aged About 45 Years, Hanuman Colony, Mandore Road, Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

Arun Kumar S/o. Shri Om Prakash, resident of Chainpura, Gandhi Chowk, Jaisalmer (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. JP Bhardwaj, PP

¶10

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶11

Order

¶12

23/01/2019

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this petition claiming

¶14

following relief:-

¶15

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the present criminal misc. petition and the FIR No. 157/2018 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Jaisalmer, against the petitioner, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 120B, 379 and 411 IPC, may kindly be quashed and set aside; and the police be restrained from making any further investigation in the FIR, and it may be further directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner.”

¶16

The allegation in sum and substance is to the effect that company, GVPR Engineers Ltd. has undertaken a contract for laying of pipelines for supplying drinking water in Jaisalmer district and the said contract stated in the year 2016 and is scheduled to

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-356/2019]

¶19

be completed by May, 2019. The allegation is that the pipes are stolen.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the pipes being missing. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission that if the petitioner is permitted to participate in the investigation, he would be in a position to convince the I.O. that no case is made out against him.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wants to submit a representation alongwith all the relevant documents before the concerned investigating authority to redress the issue.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that if the petitioner submits a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before the concerned investigating authority within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided strictly in accordance with law, before completing the investigation.

¶23

In light of the aforesaid assurance given by learned Public Prosecutor, the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the concerned investigating authority that in case the petitioner submits a representation alongwith all the necessary documents before it within a period of ten days from today, then the same shall be considered and decided before completing the investigation, strictly in accordance with law and as per the assurance given by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶24

In the peculiar facts of the case, it would be appropriate to grant protection from arrest to the petitioner as it will be a waste of energy and resources of the Police Department

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMP-356/2019]

¶27

to run after the accused to complete the related investigation and without protection it would also cause un-necessary hardship to the accused, who deserves a basic opportunity of explaining his case before the Investigating Authority without fear of arrest. The Investigating Officer, however, shall have the liberty of custodial interrogation after giving 15 days’ notice before arrest if required. In the interest of justice and the facts and circumstances noted by this Court, the limited protection is justified. Therefore, if during the investigation, the concerned investigating authority needs to arrest the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be given 15 days’ notice before making such arrest. The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises. The petitioner shall be required to join the investigation.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶29

Sanjay

Bajranglal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bajranglal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Neelu Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nagendra Rawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanta Vs State

Kamlesh Sankhla Vs State

Kheta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan