In a bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., this court dismissed the petitioners' plea for anticipatory bail. The court held that allegations of inflicting injuries and the requirement for custodial interrogation made this an unfit case for bail.
Anticipatory bail application dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. Beawar
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nar Singh petitioner No.2 is present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
16/03/2023
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.
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal Vs. Union
of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2SCC 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.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.370/2022 registered at Police Station Masuda, District Ajmer for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 504 IPC (later on offence u/s 143, 323, 341, 308 and 504 IPC was found to have been made out).
[CRLMB-646/2023]
(2 of 2)
Mr. Nar Singh petitioner No.2 is present in person appeared in person submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Present FIR was lodged due to enmity. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioners had inflicted injuries to Gopal Singh, Rekha, Dinesh and Lucky. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is also required. So, looking to the gravity of offence, their bail be dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by the petitioner No.2 as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
Allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners had inflicted injuries to Gopal Singh, Rekha, Dinesh and Lucky and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is also required. So, looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.
Hence, the anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners stand dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Brijesh 83.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the gravity of the offence.
Whether custodial interrogation is required given the nature of allegations against the petitioners.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶14
Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2SCC 45
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Narendra Singh
Nar Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhadha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
