Dismissed

Fakru S/O Shri Usman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2020CRLMB/9164/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court held that since the investigation was pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. due to the petitioner's absconding, no case was made out for the grant of anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.44/2020.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Investigation pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Fakru S/O Shri Usman Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9164/2020

¶3

Fakru S/o Shri Usman, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill. Mirjapur P/s Kishangar Bass Alwar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurvindra Singh (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandra Gupta Chopra, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS

¶10

Order

¶11

13/10/2020

¶12

Petitioner has filed this bail application u/s 438 of Cr.P.C apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.44/2020 registered with Police Station Nogava, District-Alwar for the offence/s punishable u/s 5, 6 & 8 of the RBA Act.

¶13

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per FIR Driver of the vehicle has arrested on the spot. His name was Sahun. It has been mentioned that two other accused-persons absconded from the place of offence. After investigation, chage-sheet has been filed. There is no iota of evidence against the present petitioner on record, which can connect him with the alleged crime. There is no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he may be granted benefit of pre-arrest bail.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-9164/2020]

¶17

Perused the record of the case. As per evidence of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, it has come on record that four accused persons absconded from the place of offence and they were named by each other as Fakru, Mormal, Jakir and Saddam. As per factual report, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 3, 5, 6 & 8 of the RBA Act against the accused Sahun, Mormal and Jakir while investigation has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for co-accused Saddam and present accusedpetitioner Fakru as they were absconding.

¶18

On perusal of evidence collected during the investigation and looking to the fact that investigation against the present petitioner is pending, no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the Cr. Misc. bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶20

(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J

¶21

Sunita Kanwar /26

Fakru S/O Shri Usman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fakru S/O Shri Usman 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

Sajid Beg S/O Shri Siddhki Beg Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajesh S/O Rambahadur Vs State of Rajasthan

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