This High Court rejected anticipatory bail applications filed by two accused persons charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, and related offences under Sections 364, 341, 323 IPC. The court held that the nature of the offence and prima facie evidence precluded such relief.
Anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. were 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. 11772/2021
Harsh S/o Sh. Vikram Jeet, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 3 ML,
Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10150/2021
Radha Krishan S/o Shri Roopchand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Fassewala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
For complainant Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
17/11/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.246/2021 of Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 341, 323, 147 & 149 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant has implicated the petitioners in the criminal case as complainant
(2 of 3)
[CRLMB-11772/2021]
is having matrimonial dispute with his wife Sarwya @ Sarwja and petitioner Harsh is brother and petitioner Radha Krishan is Fufa of Sarwya @ Sarwja. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that on the instance of petitioners, the criminal case were lodged against the complainant, therefore as a counter blast he has lodged the present FIR. It has been submitted that there is no
motive to kidnap the complainant and whole case is falsely conducted.
Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the coaccused Sarwya @ Sarwja has already granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2021. therefore, the petitioners may also be granted same benefit.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and on the basis of case diary, submitted that as per statements of complainant and other witnesses, petitioners came on the vehicle and kidnapped him in a pre-planned manner and also gave beatings to him. The injury report also shows that he received the injuries.
Counsel for the complainant has also opposed the bail application.
The present bail application is arise out of offence under Section 364 Cr.P.C. wherein the punishment is provided in imprisonment for life rigorous imprisonment and 10 years and the offence triable by the court of Sessions.
The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State (NCT) & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 has affirmed and reiterated principle governing the law of grant/refusal of pre-arrest bail as propounded in case of
(3 of 3)
[CRLMB-11772/2021]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565 . The relevant paragraph No.7.2 of the said judgment reads as follows:-
“1. The Power under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised springy in exceptional cases only;
xxxxxxxxxx
In the present case, as per the statements of complainant and other witnesses and injury report of complainant, it may not be assume prima-facie that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. Previous animosity between the parties is not disputed fact. Thus, considering the seriousness nature of offence and prima-facie evidence on record, this Court does not find the present case fit for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
As far as Sarwya @ Sarwja is concerned, she is a lady and if the co-ordinate Bench has granted anticipatory bail to her, both the petitioners may not claim the parity with Sarwya @ Sarwja.
Accordingly, these bail applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
120-Anshul/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in a case involving kidnapping, false imprisonment, and assault.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State (NCT) & Anr.Referred¶17
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State (NCT) & Anr. (2020) 5 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of PunjabReferred¶20
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Harsh S/o Sh. Vikram Jeet
Radha Krishan S/o Shri Roopchand
State of Rajasthan
Suresh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
