Partly allowed

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/O Chauthmal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/1142/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application for petitioner Bhanwar Lal due to specific allegations of causing grievous injury. However, it allowed the application for petitioner Nandkishore Meena, who was not named in the FIR, granting him pre-arrest bail subject to conditions and security.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to Nandkishore Meena with conditions; dismissed for Bhanwar Lal Meena.

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/O Chauthmal Meena Vs State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11781]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1142/2024

¶4

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/o Chauthmal Meena, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Barundhan, Police Station Taleda, Dist. Bundi (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1141/2024 Nandkishore Meena S/o Dhanraj Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Barundhan, Police Station Talera, Dist. Bundi (Raj.).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Harshita Sharma, for
	Dr. Mahesh Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶17

Order

¶18

07/03/2024

¶19

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 429/2023 registered at Police Station Talera, District Bundi for the offence(s) under Sections 341, 323 & 34 of IPC, the accusedpetitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have falsely been involved in the case. The accusedpetitioner Nandkishore has not been named in the FIR and there is

[2024:RJ-JP:11781]

[CRLMB-1142/2024]

(2 of 3)

no specific allegation against him that he caused injuries to the injured Devraj Choudhary. He further submits that custodial investigation of accused-petitioners are not required, thus, accused-petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail applications. He contends that in the FIR, there is specific allegation against the accused-petitioner Bhanwar Lal that he inflicted injury with the aid of axe at injured Devraj. He further submits that due to the head injury, injured Devraj sustained fracture of the frontal bone, frontal sinus of left eye orbit, and the injuries were later on opined to be dangerous to life. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the anticipatory bail applications of petitioners may be dismissed.

¶26

Heard and perused the case diary. 5. In the FIR, the name of the petitioner Nandkishore is not mentioned and the specific allegation of causing injury to the injured Devraj are against the accused Bhanwar Lal. The injury caused to the injured Devraj Choudhary was found to be grievous in nature and dangerous to life. There is no specific allegation against the other petitioner Nandkishore. Therefore, considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the accusedpetitioner Bhanwar Lal on anticipatory bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C qua accused-petitioner Bhanwar Lal is dismissed. 7. So far as, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. of accused-petitioner Nandkishore is concerned, the same is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Nandkishore Meena S/o Dhanraj Meena, in

[CRLMB-1142/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:11781]

(3 of 3)

connection with FIR No.429/2023 registered at Police Station Talera, District Bundi, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting OfÏcer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police ofÏcer as and when required;

¶33

(ii) that the petitioner 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 ofÏcer, and

¶34

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

¶35

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶36

Keshav/180-181

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/O Chauthmal Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/O Chauthmal Meena 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

Gaurishankar Sharma S/O Shri Brijkishore Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Roberto Della Valle Vs State

Sanjay Vs State

Kumarchand S/O Mangalram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Samay Singh S/O Ram Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sumit S/O Raj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan