Allowed

Raghuveer v. State

Rajasthan HC8 Nov 2023CRLMB/2633/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allowed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The court considered the family relationship between parties, the lapsed interim bail period without misbehavior, and its own desired case law to grant bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail; Petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each conditioned to appear for interrogation, not to tamper witnesses, and not leave India.

Raghuveer Vs State — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2633/2022

¶3

Raghuveer S/o Shri Banshi Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Aogala, Police Station Sedva, Tehsil Sedva, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Surendra Bagmalani
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA
For Complainant	: Mr. Rameshwar Dave

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

08/11/2023

¶12

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶13

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	43/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Dhorimanna
3.	District	Barmer
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 452, 341, 323 and 34 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	Sections 307,324 of the IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	14.02.2022

¶14

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no

¶15

[CRLMB-2633/2022]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶18

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The parties belongs to a common descendant and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner on 02.08.2022 restraining his arrest in the present case, whereafter around two and one year has lapsed and the petitioner is enjoying the said protection since then and he has not misused the liberty during this prolonged period as no report in this regard has been received by this court. Thus, in light of the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhishek Kumar Vs. State of Dehli (Criminal Appeal No.360/2022) reported in 2022/INSC/275 , and considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of

¶21

[CRLMB-2633/2022]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/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 on the following conditions:-

¶24

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶25

(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 disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶26

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

¶27

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶28

269-divya/-

Raghuveer v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghuveer 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

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishak Mohammed S/O Ahmad Noor Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhajan Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan