Dismissed

Sajid Beg S/O Shri Siddhki Beg v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2020CRLMB/6629/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court held that despite petitioners claims of false implication, there remained a requirement for investigation and he could not grant bail without commenting on detailed merits. Relief: Bail application dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

Sajid Beg S/O Shri Siddhki Beg Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6629/2020

¶3

Sajid Beg S/o Shri Siddhki Beg, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vill. Behted Tehsil And Ps Malarana Dungar Dist. Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma (Through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, P.P.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶9

Order

¶10

13/10/2020

¶11

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 57/2020, registered with Police Station Malarna Doonger, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 379 of IPC, 4/21 MMDR Act and 54, 60 of RMMCR 2017.

¶12

It is has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to connect him with the crime. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Accused-petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required.

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-6629/2020]

¶16

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary and factual report. The allegation is regarding illegal mining and theft of Bajri. The offence has been registered under Section 379 of IPC, Section 4/21 MMDR Act and Section 54 and 60 of RMMCR 2017. As per the factual report, investigation is pending against the petitioner as he was not found at the place of occurrence. As per the factual report, three other cases are shown to be pending against the petitioner, out of which in two cases it has been mentioned that he has been acquitted while third case is registered under Section 323, 147, 325 of IPC.

¶17

Looking to the evidence available on record, it cannot be said that accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is a requirement of investigation in the matter. Hence without commenting upon the detailed merit of the case, this court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner.

¶18

The anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶19

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶20

Pooja /34

Sajid Beg S/O Shri Siddhki Beg v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Beg S/O Shri Siddhki Beg 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

Rakesh Meena S/O Chhitrapal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash S/O Chhitar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Bairwa S/O Shri Ladu Ram Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Fakru S/O Shri Usman Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajesh S/O Rambahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

Hari Singh S/O Rameshwar Dayal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan