This is bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The high court refused anticipatory bail, holding that the gravity of the offence and need for custodial interrogation make it not a fit 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.
[2024:RJ-JP:6788]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1337/2024 Harun Khan S/o Isak Khan, R/o 41, Lal Kothi, Ganpati Vihar, Tijara Road, Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order
09/02/2024
[2024:RJ-JP:6788]
[CRLMB-1337/2024]
(2 of 2)
Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. Co-accused Sana Khan and Waheeda Begum have been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16013/2023. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /11
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for enlargement on anticipatory bail considering the gravity of the offence and requirement of custodial interrogation.
Whether allegations of coming with lethal weapons and inflicting dangerous injuries justify refusal of anticipatory bail.
Harun Khan
State Of Rajasthan
Narendra Singh Dhaddha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
