Dismissed

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2023CRLMB/418/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Dhaddha dismissed the bail application for non-maintainability of anticipatory bail in excise cases where illicit liquor was recovered from the petitioner's vehicle. The court noted the petitioner's non-appearance and reliance on Harish Uppal regarding judicial non-cooperation.

What did the court decide?

Application stood dismissed; petitioner not enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 418/2023

¶3

Komal Kaur W/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Dadar, P.s. Sadar, Alwar Distt. Alwar (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶10

Order

¶11

14/03/2023

¶12

No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.

¶13

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court Administration. 3. The Apex Court in the judgment of Harish Uppal Vs. Union

¶14

Of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one, rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties and/or their Advocates.

¶15

The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr. P.C. in connection with FIR No.338/2022 registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act (later on offence(s) under Sections

¶16

[CRLMB-418/2023]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

16/54 & 54-A of Rajasthan Excise Act was found to have been made out).

¶19

Petitioner in her pleadings mentioned that she has been falsely implicated in this case because of registered owner of the alleged vehicle from which illicit liquor was recovered. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the illicit liquor was recovered from the motorcycle of the petitioner and anticipatory bail is also not maintainable in excise matters. So, bail be dismissed.

¶21

I have considered the pleadings of the petitioner as well as arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶22

It is an admitted position that the illicit liquor was recovered from the motor-cycle of the petitioner and she is a registered owner of the alleged vehicle. Since, anticipatory bail is not maintainable in excise cases, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶23

Hence, the criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed.

¶24

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶25

Gourav/42

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal Kaur W/O Surendra Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kailash Chand Sharma S/O Shri Kalyan Sahai Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop S/O Sh. Daluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh S/O Deenaram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahid @ Raja Kureshi Son of Shri Ikramudeen Kureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mosin Khan S/O Nisar Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ahamed Son of Baseer Vs State of Rajasthan