The High Court quashed three bail cancellation applications (– 12/2024, 6/2024, 7/2024) filed against Pratik Porwal. The court held that the notice was issued without a valid charge sheet or proper warrant foundation, rendering the proceedings a violation of Article 22.
Quashed the bail cancellation applications and set aside the notice.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:17585]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 12/2024
Pratik Porwal S/o Sh. Jagdip Porwal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 46, Bada Bhazar, Ps Ghantaghar Udaipur, Raj
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 6/2024
Pratik Porwal S/o Sh. Jagdip Porwal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 46, Bada Bhazar, P.s. Ghantagahr Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 7/2024
Pratik Porwal S/o Sh. Jagdip Porwal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 46, Bada Bhazar, P.s. Ghantaghar Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mool Singh Bhati, PP Mr. Shambhoo Singh Rathore Mr. Tushar Moad
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
23/04/2024
1- izkFkhZ&eqLrxhl dh vksj ls tekur jn~n dk ;g vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 ¼2½ n.M izfØ;k lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk ?kaVk?kj] ftyk mn;iqj esa ntZ izFke
[2024:RJ-JD:17585]
[CRLBC-12/2024]
(2 of 2)
lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 123@2023] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 420] 406 o 120ch Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds ekeys esa vizkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dq.kky g"kZn HkkbZ] ftxj dqekj o uhjo HkkbZ }kjk izLrqr vfxze tekur ds vkosnu i= dks U;k;ky; ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] mn;iqj }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 01-02-2024 o 18-01-2024 }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS] dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA
2- geus cgl tekur jn~n vkosnu lquh rFkk miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA
3- izkFkhZ&eqLrxhl ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa dsoy ek= /kkjk 41 dk uksfVl ugha nsus ds vk/kkj ij vfxze tekur ij vfHk;qDrx.k dks fjgk fd;k x;k gSa] tks vfxze tekur dk vkns'k fnukad 01-02-2024 o 18-01-2024 dks fujLr fd;k tkos vkSj izkFkhZ&eqLrxhl }kjk izLrqr tekur jn~n vkosnu i= dks Lohdkj fd;k tkosA
4- blds foijhr ;ksX; vf/koDrk vizkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls ;g rdZ izLrqr fd;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa U;k;ky; }kjk izdj.k esa lg&vfHk;qDrx.k dh tekur gks tkus vkSj laO;ogkj dh izd`fr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, vfxze tekur ij fjgk fd;k x;k gSA bl vk/kkj ij vfxze tekur ds vkns'k dks fujLr ugha fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
5- eSaus mi;qZDr rdkZsa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl ekeys esa vfxze tekur ds vkns'k fnukad 18-01-2024 o 01-02-2024 ds i'pkr~ vizkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk xokgksa dks mRizsfjr djus] /kedh nsus ;k opu nsus dk vkjksi ugha gS vkSj ;g tekur jnn dk vkosnu i= vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls is'k u dj eqLrxhl i{k dh vksj ls is'k fd;k x;k gSA vfHk;kstu i{k ds vuqla/kku esa lg;ksx vfHk;qDrx.k }kjk u fd;k x;k gks] ,slk Hkh bl ekeys esa vkjksi ugha gSA bl vk{ksfir vkns'k esa laO;ogkj dh izd`fr dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, o lg&vfHk;qDrx.k dh tekur gks tkus ds rF; dk Hkh mYys[k fd;k x;k gSA ek= /kkjk 41 ds uksfVl ugha nsus ds vk/kkj ij vfxze tekur ij fjgk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh voLFkk esa ;g tekur jnn dk vkosnu i= [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA
6- vr% izkFkhZ&eqLrxhl dh vksj ls izLrqr tekur jn~n dk vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT)J
95-96-97-GauravG/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the notice to the accused was a nullity for lack of valid arrest warrant under Section 41 of the CrPC.
Pratik Porwal
State of Rajasthan
Yogendra Kumar Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
