Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was rejected. The Court held the matter was not a fit case for bail as factual reports prima facie indicated the petitioner was a conspirator in the alleged offences.
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.
[2023/RJJD/009213]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1262/2023
Sumer Singh S/o Shri Ratan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Arbuda Nagar Abkari Road Abu Road, P.s. - Abu Road Sehar, Dist. Sirohi (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jagidsh Singh |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP Mr. Naman Mohanot, for the |
| complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
06/04/2023
The present criminal misc. bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner in connection with FIR no.33/2022, Police Station Abu Road Shehar, District Sirohi lodged for the offences under Sections 436, 115 and 120B of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of false allegations against the petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged. It is submitted that there is no role of the petitioner for committing the offences alleged against him. Thus, it is submitted that there is no requirement of the petitioner for custodial interrogation. Hence, it is prayed this anticipatory bail application may be allowed.
[2023/RJJD/009213]
[CRLMB-1262/2023]
(2 of 2)
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the factual report submitted by the investigating officer prima facie found that the petitioner is one of the conspirators for committing the offence. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may not be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the material available on record including the factual report, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
In view of the above, the present bail application is hereby rejected.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
168-CPGoyal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under Sections 436, 115, and 120B of the IPC.
Whether the case constitutes a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail given the prima facie finding of conspiracy.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sumer Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Madan Gopal Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
