Anticipatory bail application for two accused in a land-dispute FIR involving kidnapping and related offences was dismissed after the court found the petitioner had not joined investigation despite Section 41A notice and complainant allegations were direct.
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:39741]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9062/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
| ----Respondent | |
|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Atar Singh |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
19/09/2024
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:39741]
[CRLMB-9062/2024]
Distt. Tonk. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners would not be required for any purpose. In view thereof, the present anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JP:39741]
[CRLMB-9062/2024]
his liberty. It is also well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
SAHIL SONI/378
1 issue framed by the court
Should pre-arrest bail be granted to the petitioners accused in FIR No. 58/2024 despite non-joining of investigation and direct allegations by the complainant?
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Rambabu S/o Sh. Shivkaran
Rajaram S/o Sh. Rambabu
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
