Allowed

Ajay v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Jan 2024CRLMB/137/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to two accused petitioners facing charges under Sections 381, 411, and 420 IPC. The court allowed the application on the ground that the principal accused was already on bail and held the petitioners' arrest was based on conjectures.

What did the court decide?

Benefit of anticipatory bail granted. Petitioners to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Ajay Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 137/2024

¶3

Ajay S/o Shrawan Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Samota Ki Dhani, Nangla Purohitan, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

Dr. Gajanand Gupta, Incharge, Primary Health Center, Bhopalpura, Udaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15846/2023 Manish Kumar S/o Shrawan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Samota Ki Dhani, Nangal Purohitan. Jaipur. (Raj)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. ManojKumar Pareek
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar,PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶17

Order

¶18

29/01/2024

¶19

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing applications under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶20

S.No.	Particula	rs of the Case
1.	FIR Number	167/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Hathipole
3.	District	Udaipur

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 381, 411 and 420 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugned order in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 137/2024	22.12.2023
7.	Date of passing of impugned order in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15846/2023	11.12.2023

¶23

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned matter, the petitioners have prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶24

3.. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the present cases are not fit for grant of anticipatory bails.

¶25

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

The principal accused Brijesh Vikas Bhardwaj from whose laboratory the disputed vials were recovered has been granted bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate itself and the petitioners have been made accused in this case on the strength of disclosure made by him to the police while in police custody, I see no reason for declining of protection from the arrest to the petitioners. They are ready to co-operate with the

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

investigation. In this view of the matter, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bails to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided each of them 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 Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶30

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

¶31

(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 officer, and

¶32

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

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

90-91 divya/-

Ajay v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay 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

Shiv Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Shimbhu Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaitan Singh Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan

Moin Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Jamni Devi @ Jamna Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Saud Vs State of Rajasthan