Allowed

Fajju S/O Suppa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2024CRLMB/7075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Praveer Bhatnagar allowed the anticipatory bail application of Fajju and Istak @ Murli, who faced arrest in an omnibus FIR under various sections of IPC. The court granted bail after noting the petitioners' age and willingness to cooperate, subject to standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Allowed anticipatory bail; enlarged on arrest if personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 is furnished.

Fajju S/O Suppa Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:32761]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.7075/2024

¶4

Fajju S/o Suppa, Aged About 63 Years, R/o Village Khalluka, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg. Rajasthan.

¶5

Istak @ Murli S/o Fajju, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Khalluka, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg. Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶12

01/08/2024

¶13

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 341, 379, 452, 427, 354 and 336 of IPC, the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been involved in this case. The allegations containing in the FIR against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. The complainant has lodged the FIR against the 44 persons. Age of the petitioner No.1. is 63 years. The accusedpetitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. Apart from the offence under Section 452 of IPC other offences levelled in the FIR are bailable one. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners may be allowed.

[2024:RJ-JP:32761]

[CRLMB-7075/2024]

(2 of 2)

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application.

¶19

Considering the fact that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature. The offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427 and 336 of IPC are bailable one. The petitioner No.1 is aged 63 years. The accused-petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, without commenting anything on the merits of the case and considering the above facts, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners.

¶20

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely (1) Fajju S/o Suppa and (2) Istak @ Murli S/o Fajju, in connection with FIR No.41/2022 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Bharatpur, they shall be enlarged on bail, provided both of them furnish 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:-

¶21

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

¶22

(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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶23

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

¶24

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶25

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-8

Fajju S/O Suppa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fajju S/O Suppa 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

Anil Kumar S/O Ramniwas Vs Union of India

Mahesh Chand Jangid and Ors. Vs Smt Lada Jangid

Smt. Sunita Wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Daughter of Shri Bajranglal , Vs Sunil Kumar Son of Shri Ramchandra

Khem Chand @ Khema S/O Bhuri Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajraj S/O Sh. Majbootsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gyanchand S/O Bhuri Singh Vs State of Rajasthan