Dismissed

Smt. Kamla Devi v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2021CRLMB/5078/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered anticipatory bail applications filed by two petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR alleging offences under Sections 342 and 376(1) IPC. After hearing counsel and examining the case diary, the court found that the nature of the offence and the petitioner's antecedents made the case unfit for pre-arrest bail, citing Supreme C

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are dismissed.

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12036/2021
Narendra Bhakhar S/o Shri Durgaram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Indroi, Presently Residing At Ramnagar, Tehsil And District
Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5078/2021
Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Tikmaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Bhurtiya, Present Resident Of Navel Ki Chakki, Dist. Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Baghmalani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.
Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Vashith for
Mr. Vikash Vishnoi, for the
complainant

¶3

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶4

Order

¶5

08/11/2021

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case diary.

¶7

(2 of 3)

¶8

[CRLMB-12036/2021]

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have filed these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.297/2020 registered at Mahila Police Station, District Barmer for offence under Sections 342 & 376 (1) of IPC.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and the dispute was of transaction of money. The petitioners may be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

¶11

On the other hand, Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the pre-arrest bail applications.

¶12

It reveals that against petitioner Narendra Bhakhar, as many as 13 cases are said to be pending and the details of such cases are mentioned in the Sessions Court order. In the statements of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., She has made allegations against both the petitioners.

¶13

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. , reported in 2020 (5) SCC Page 1 has affirmed the principles laid down by the Constitutional Bench in case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibba.

¶14

As per the judgment it has been opined that:-

¶15

“The discretion under Section 438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless”.

¶16

Looking to the nature of offence, antecedents of the petitioner Narendra and role of petitioner Smt. Kamla Devi, this Court does not find this case fit for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶17

(3 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-12036/2021]

¶19

Accordingly, these criminal misc. bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶20

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶21

87-88 Ravi Kh/-

Smt. Kamla Devi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kamla Devi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Makkad Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrawan Kumar Vs State

Madan Singh Vs State

Maank Pratap Singh Rajawat Vs State

Ravindra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Javree Lal Vs State of Rajasthan-State