Allowed

Banwari Son of Shri Ramuji v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2022CRLMB/5331/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who was not named in the FIR for alleged mob violence against police officers. The court found no connecting links between the petitioner and the case, deemed custodial interrogation unnecessary, and granted bail on furnishing a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, upon conditions of appearing for interrogation, not influencing witnesses, and not leaving India.

Banwari Son of Shri Ramuji Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTWAN BENCH AT 3APPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5331/2022

¶3

Banwari Son Of Shri Ramuji, Resident Of Sone Ka Gurja, Sewar Pali, Police Station Sadar, Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶6

For Petitioner(s) \ - : Mr. Dushyant Jain For esondeht(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶7

. . :*. - i V

¶8

I' -

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSBHCE FAWAND ALH

¶10

1. Apprehending his ariest r. in 'connection with FIR No. 27/2018 , . - registered at Police Station++$armathura, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 336 of IPC and ,. I. Section 3 of PDPP &k,.,khe _, t I. petitioner has preferred this ,: ., b J . -?*' anticipatory bail application '. under , Section 438 Cr.P.C. ?, 2. Briefly stated, *the , facts . of the case are that an FIR was . . .-. . ? lodged on 11 .01.2018 <+,. at police *. Station Sarmathura, District 'I r Dholpur alleging inter aria 'that a large number of people carrying sticks and stones made an attack upon the police. The mob was pelting stones on the team and as a consequence thereof, one of the members of the police, Umashankar, received an injury above his left eye. Several persons have been made accused in the case; however, the names of the assaulting persons have not been mentioned.

¶11

(2 of 3)

¶12

[CRLMB-533 1/2022]

¶13

3. i. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the present accused-petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. He has falsely been implicated in this case. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. His custodial interrogation would not be required for any purpose.

¶14

. . 11. The matter is pending investigation since 2018. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. He has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he, was not the person who incited the mob -- or was involved'in pelting stones upon the police. He further '- submits that'since a large number of people were present there .\ ,4" -,. . ., ' and making protest over the dereliction of duty by the of police administration which on the spur of the moment, transformed into a rampage, thus, it .is not possible to speculate that who actually . . incited the mob and who!.inflicted injury to the victim. Even if the case is taken on its face value, an offence under Section 307 of IPC is not made out. since the intent of the villagers was not to kill the member of policet rather it was an agitation. He further avers that it is not a case where custodial interrogation would be 3. required and the p&iti.Qne'i I is- ready to cooperate with the investigation.

¶15

Learned Public ~rokecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

leveled the FIR, Considered the overall allegations contentions made by the counsel for the accused-petitioner and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case petitioner requested this Court for granting an anticipatory bail this court deems it just and Proper to allow the anticipatory bail application-

¶17

6. ccordingl, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The s.~.o/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur in F-1.R. N0.27/2018 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Banwari Son 09 Shri Ramwjl, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rsa50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station dn the following conditions:-

¶18

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself availa-bie.for interrogation by a police officer as and whensrequired; , i

¶19

-\ +- - (ii) ',-?that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted'.with the facts of the case so as to dissuade. him from Idisclosing such facts to the court or any polite officer, and

¶20

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶21

-. (FARJAND ALI),J

¶22

CHHAYA AWASTHI 1244

Banwari Son of Shri Ramuji v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banwari Son of Shri Ramuji 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

Mahendra Singh Vs State

Suresh S/O Maddu Vs State of Rajasthan

Rampratap Singh S/O Late Sh. Heera Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramprasad @ Golu S/O Shri Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayaram Son of Shri Dhanna Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Amjad S/O Laik Ahmad Vs State of Rajasthan