Allowed

Karnail S/O Masru v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Sept 2024CRLMB/10016/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by three accused persons. The petitioners faced charges under multiple IPC sections for alleged offences. The court noted omnibus allegations and lack of specific overt acts attributed to them, leading to a decision to grant bail with bonds and conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed subject to personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Karnail S/O Masru Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40242]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10016/2024

¶4

Karnail S/o Masru, R/o Village Jatoli Police Station Kaithwara District Deeg.

¶5

Taiyab S/o Misal, R/o Village Jatoli Police Station Kaithwara District Deeg.

¶6

Jahid S/o Kursid, R/o Village Jatoli Police Station Kaithwara District Deeg.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Harendra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Public Prosecutor with Ms. Arti Sharma, Public
	Prosecutor
	Ms. Harshita Sharma for Dr. Mahesh
	Sharma for complainant

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶13

Order

¶14

21/09/2024

¶15

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.42/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 354 & 427 IPC, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have been falsely implicated in this case because they are the family members of the co-accused persons. Learned counsel further submits that the Police after investigation has not found the allegation for offence under Section 354 IPC. Learned

[2024:RJ-JP:40242]

[CRLMB-10016/2024]

(2 of 3)

counsel further submits that there are omnibus allegations against the accused-petitioners and no specific overt act has been attributed to them and they are ready to cooperate with the investigation in future. Therefore, the benefit of anticipatory bail may be extended to the accused-petitioners.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the accused-petitioners have participated in committing the offence, therefore, the injured person has also sustained grievous injuries.

¶22

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the case diary.

¶23

Taking into consideration the fact that there are omnibus allegations against the accused-petitioners and no specific overt act has been attributed to them, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners.

¶24

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners named above in connection with aforesaid FIR shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶25

(i) that the petitioner shall make themselves

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:40242]

[CRLMB-10016/2024]

available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶30

(ii) that the petitioners 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

¶31

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

¶32

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶33

Ashish Kumar /175

Karnail S/O Masru v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnail S/O Masru 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju @ Rajulal S/O Shrilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul S/O Ibrahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu S/O Pukhraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushila Bai W/O Shiv Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kesari Devi W/O Ramlal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Man S/O Sh. Chauthmal Man Vs State of Rajasthan