, on bail provided they furnish a personal bond and sureties.
Petitioners Nos. 2, 3, and 4 allowed bail on Rs.50,000/- bond and sureties; Petitioner No. 1 application dismissed.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:9539]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14036/2024
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
04/03/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:9539]
[CRLMB-14036/2024]
(2 of 3)
this case. It is argued that the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS is not made out against all the petitioners. The injuries sustained to injured Manju Bai, Gita Bai, Prem Bai, Prem Lata and Ronali are simple blunt in nature. The injuries sustained to injured Rohit Singh at his left and right arm were found to be grievous in nature. The injuries sustained to injured Hari Mohan were found to be grievous in nature but they are not specifically attributed to be caused by the petitioners. The name of the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are not mentioned in the FIR. The accused-petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation. It is further contended that the other co-accused who were arrested, have already been enlarged on regular bail by the Court below, therefore, no fruitful purpose be served to send the petitioners in the custody and therefore they may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
[2025:RJ-JP:9539]
[CRLMB-14036/2024]
(3 of 3)
proper to enlarge the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 on anticipatory bail. As far as petitioner No.1-Dayaram is concerned all the material witnesses in their statement rendered under Section 180 of BNSS has named the petitioner No.1-Dayaram, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1-Dayaram.
following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 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
(iii) that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
Ashwani Kr Srivastava /208
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners not named in the FIR and whose roles are not attributed by material witnesses.
Whether the application of Petitioner No.1 should be dismissed given that material witnesses named him in their statements.
Whether the grant of bail is conditioned on executing a personal bond and furnishing sureties.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Dayaram S/o Shri Shankarlal
Ramsagar S/o Shri Heeralal
Sanwra S/o Shri Sitaram
Omprakash S/o Shri Sitaram
State Of Rajasthan
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
