Allowed

Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/O Shishupal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Sept 2024CRLMB/7652/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. pending investigation in an FIR registered for offences under Section 379 IPC and mining-related statutes, holding that since the accused had already been interrogated and coercive measures were unnecessary, extending bail on personal bond with sureties was just and proper.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; petitioner to be released on bail if arrested upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each and fulfilling specific conditions.

Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/O Shishupal Sharma Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:37147]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7652/2024

¶4

Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/o Shishupal Sharma, R/o Village Baldevgarh, P.S. Tehla District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/09/2024

¶13

Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.07/2024 registered at Police Station Tahla, District Alwar for the offencess under Section 379 IPC, Sections 4/21 of the Mines & Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 54 & 60 of the Rajasthan Mines and Minerals Concession Rules, 2017, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that this Court vide order dated 11.07.2024 directed the accused-petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer for interrogation on or before 30.07.2024. Learned counsel further submits that in compliance of the directions of this Court, the accused-petitioner had appeared before the Investigating Officer on 25.07.2024 and he has been interrogated. Learned

[2024:RJ-JP:37147]

[CRLMB-7652/2024]

(2 of 3)

counsel also submits that now the petitioner is not required for any kind of interrogation or recovery and sending him in custody would not serve any purpose. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner ready to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, he may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and submits that the petitioner had joined the investigation and he has already been interrogated. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material facts available on record.

¶20

Having considered the allegations against the petitioner and also the fact that the he has already been interrogated by the Investigating Officer under the directions of this Court, this Court without without expressing anything on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail application to the petitioner.

¶21

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner named above in connection with FIR No.07/2024 registered at Police Station Tahla, District Alwar, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶22

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:37147]

[CRLMB-7652/2024]

(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

¶27

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

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

Ashish Kumar /105

Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/O Shishupal Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Sahai Sharma S/O Shishupal Sharma 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

Manan Mohan Shara S/O Ravi Mohan Shara Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustak S/O Kalu Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetram S/O Sumer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Awesh Mev S/O Ahmed Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Subash Chand Vs State

Smt. Bijal Barot D/O Mannu Bhai W/O Kirtan Rao Vs State of Rajasthan