Dismissed

Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Jul 2024CRLMB/6214/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application for anticipatory bail regarding offences under the IPC, the Court dismissed the petition. The judge held that prima facie material showed serious involvement and evasion of arrest, making it an inappropriate case for granting bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as it is not a fit case for pre-arrest bail.

Sohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26830]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6214/2024

¶4

Sohan Singh S/o Sh Tej Singh, Aged About 65 Years, 2. Rajendra Singh S/o Sh Sohan Singh, Aged About 34 Years,

¶5

Kishan Singh S/o Sh Sohan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, all R/o Village- Parmoro - Ki - Bhagal,semal, P.s. Khamnor, Distt Rajsamand Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶12

Order

¶13

03/07/2024

¶14

This is an anticipatory bail moved on behalf of the applicants in relation to F.I.R. no.36/2024 of Police Station Khamnor, District Rajsamand, registered for the offence punishable under sections(s) 341, 323, 325, 336 and 308/34 of IPC. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the application are noted here in below:2. Learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that petitioners are innocent person and present FIR filed against the petitioners is false and baseless; that the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a false case; that there is no record to show as to how ingredient of Sections 325, 336 and 308 of IPC is made out against them besides other offences; that their

[2024:RJ-JD:26830]

[CRLMB-6214/2024]

(2 of 5)

custodial interrogation is not required; that there are no allegations of petitioners tampering with the evidence and nothing is to be recovered from applicants; that their antecedents are impeccable. Therefore, to protect his life and liberty an order of anticipatory bail may be passed in his favour.

¶19

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that on the basis of material collected so far the investigation officer have reason to believe that petitioners are guilty of offences alleged; There are serious allegations against the applicants of causing grevious hurt to injured endangering his life. Highlighting the non-cooperation in investigation by petitioners, learned PP has vehemently submitted that in the absence of custodial interrogation of petitioners, investigation in this case cannot be taken to its logical conclusion and in view of nature of gravity of offence, custodial interrogation of petitioners is essential. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

¶20

I have appreciated the submissions advanced by the learned defence counsel and learned Public Prosecutor and have carefully perused the material available on record. 5. The factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor is taken on record.

¶21

A perusal of the factual report as well as case diary reveals that after detailed investigation offence under Section 325, 336 and 308 of the IPC besides other offences has been found to be

[2024:RJ-JD:26830]

[CRLMB-6214/2024]

(3 of 5)

proved against all the three petitioners in view of the medical and X-ray report of the injured.

¶26

Determining the parameters in granting anticipatory bail, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State Of Gujarat reported in (2016) 1 SCC 152 after analyzing the entire law has observed as under:-

¶27

(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;

¶28

(b) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;

¶29

(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (d) The possibility of the likelihood of accused to repeat similar or other offences;

¶30

(e) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;

¶31

(f)

¶32

Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;

¶33

(g) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution, because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

¶34

(h)

¶35

(i)

¶36

While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to free, fair and full investigation, and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

¶37

The Court should consider reasonable apprehension of

[2024:RJ-JD:26830]

[CRLMB-6214/2024]

(4 of 5)

tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;

¶42

(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused in entitled to an order of bail.

¶43

Applying the afore-noted dictum to the instant case and after having heard both the sides at length and on perusal of the Casediary as well as material on record, it appears prima facie that it was specifically alleged by the complainant while lodging of FIR that petitioners committed hurt and injury to complainant. It is observed that the petitioners herein are involved in a serious crime. The investigation is still in process and the petitioners herein are evading arrest by not joining the investigation. Thus, the chance of the petitioners escaping the procedure of law, tampering with the evidence or threatening the complainant exists.

¶44

In my view, it will be practically scuttling the investigation in case the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner which will create hurdles in arriving at the truth.

¶45

In view of the aforesaid settled principles, the facts and circumstances of the present case, and the case set up against applicant in its entirety, the allegations leveled against the applicants this Court is of prima facie opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of pre-arrest bail to petitioners. The court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶46

[2024:RJ-JD:26830] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6214/2024]

¶47

Resultantly, instant application for anticipatory bail is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. Whatever discussed or observed hereinabove is only a prima facie view and shall not tantamount to any opinion on the merits of the case.

¶48

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶49

151-Payal/-

Sohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sohan Singh 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Kumar Parihar @ Pk Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Pal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Poonam Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajrudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Ram Vs State of Rajasthan