Single Bench order by J. Prakash Gupta on bail application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC regarding FIR involving offences under Sections 354, 498A, and 406 IPC. Bail dismissed due to prima facie case found in investigation.
Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC dismissed.
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. 8100/2020
Sunil Maggo S/o Baldevraj Khatri, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 12, Sahkar Marg, KS Housing Board, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
----Accused Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma,Advocate |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Laxman Singh, PP |
| For complainant | Mr. Saurabh Soni |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA
Order
18/10/2021
This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 67/2020 registered at Police Station, Sadulsahar, Distt. Shri Ganganagar for the offence under Sections 406, 498A, 354, 377 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only allegation against the petitioner is for committing obscene acts with the complainant. He further submits that vide order dated 15.9.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, interim protection was granted to the petitioner. Thereafter he joined the investigation and cooperated. Entire stridhan has been recovered. He is a government servant and he be granted anticipatory bail.
On the other hand, learned PP appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the same.
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-8100/2020]
They submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioner by the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. From the investigation conducted by the police, apart-from the offence under Section 354 IPC, offence under Section 498A and 406 IPC is also found to have been made out against the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner should not be granted anticipatory bail.
Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly in view of the fact that there are specific allegations against the petitioner by the complainant in her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC and prima-facie, the offence under Sections 354, 498A and 406 IPC is found to have been made out by the police against the petitioner from the investigation conducted so far, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I do not deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.
Accordingly the bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.
(PRAKASH GUPTA),J
DK/176
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given specific allegations and prima facie case under IPC Sections 354, 498A, and 406.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Maggo
State of Rajasthan
Prakash Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
