Dismissed

Sanjay Bhadu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2022CRLMB/8361/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the petitioner sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest for offences under Sections 457 and 354 IPC. The court rejected the application, noting corroboration by prosecution witnesses, and held that arrest is necessary for investigation under settled principles of law.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed; no order to enlarge the petitioner.

Sanjay Bhadu Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8361/2022

¶3

Sanjay Bhadu S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Jhopadi Road, Khokhariya, Tehsil And District Jodhpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ram Niwas
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, Public Prosecutor

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶9

Order

¶10

15/11/2022

¶11

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 164/2022, Police Station Banar, District Jodhpur for offences under Sections 457 and 354 of IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner has nothing to do with this crime and the independent witnesses have not corroborated the the story of prosecution. In these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-8361/2022]

¶16

According to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C., specific averment has been made against the petitioner and eyewitness Smt. Shanti Devi has also corroborated the story of prosecution.

¶17

Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the statement of prosecutrix and eyewitness, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

It is well settled that the power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.

¶19

In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

¶20

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶21

230-Mak/-

Sanjay Bhadu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhadu 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

Santosh Vs State

Lakshman Vs State

Rugharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Bagdi Ram Vs State

Badri Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan