High Court bench at Jaipur dismissed anticipatory bail applications filed by five petitioners engaged in illegal mining cases involving explosives, noting requirement for custodial interrogation.
Bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stood 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.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 951/2023 Ahamed Son Of Baseer, R/o Village Dathet, Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur ( Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
14/03/2023
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-950/2023]
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-950/2023]
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Gourav/43-44
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners filing anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are eligible for enlargement given allegations of illegal mining and ecological damage.
Whether the facts of illegal mining and recovery of explosive material render the present case unfit for anticipatory bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Harish Upal Vs. Union Of India & Anr.Referred¶24
(2003) 2 SCC 45 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Usman Son Of Baddal @ Noor Mohammad
Kashmir Son Of Kabir@ Kenda
Sameem @ Lakkhi Son Of Kabir @ Kenda
Hakam Son Of Kabir @ Kenda
Ahamed Son Of Baseer
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhadha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
