Jaiprakash @ Golu S/O Bharatlal Vs State of Rajasthan

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 16236/2024 Jaiprakash @ Golu S/o Bharatlal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Jastana, Ps Malarna Dungar, Dist. Sawai Madhopur.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Ms. Renu Kanwar Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶17

Order

¶18

07/01/2025

¶19

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.45/2024 registered at Police Station Malarana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC, the accused-petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS.

[2025:RJ-JP:819]

[CRLMB-16186/2024]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submit that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the regular bail applications of the other coaccused Deshraj, Neeraj and Chetram were allowed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2024, whereby, the main witnesses Dilkhush, Mohit, Nirmal & Sunil, in their statement recorded by the trial Court have categorically stated that the accused were calling them by name i.e. Ganesh, Bhagwat, Harkesh and Mukesh. It is also contended that all the eye witnesses in their crossexamination with regard to the other co-accused Deshraj, Neeraj & Chetram have also stated that these accused were not present at the place of incident. The accused-petitioners have been implicated solely as they are relatives of the other co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. The accused-petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, anticipatory bail of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these anticipatory bail applications and submitted the factual report. It is contended that the accused-petitioners along with the other coaccused after kidnapping Dilkhush, Nirmal, Mohit and Sunil kept them in wrongful confinement and took their mobile phones and also demanded ransom of Rs.5,00,000/-. It is also contended that against the petitioner Jaiprakash, five criminal cases and petitioner Bharatlal, two criminal cases under various offences were registered. The accused-petitioners are habitual offenders and their custodial interrogation is required, therefore, the first bail application of the accused-petitioner Bharatlal S/o Alulal and

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:819]

[CRLMB-16186/2024]

second bail application of the accused-petitioner Jaiprakash @ Golu S/o Bharatlal may be dismissed.

¶29

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Considering the fact that the name of the accused-petitioners

¶31

are not mentioned in the FIR. The police has submitted chargesheet against the other co-accused namely Deshraj, Neeraj and Chetram. PW-1 Mohit and PW-3 Sunil in their deposition before the trial Court have stated that the accused were calling them by name and they were naming Ganesh, Bhagwat, Mukesh, Mohan Singh & Harkesh, therefore, considering the above statements, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the first anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner Bharatlal S/o Alulal and second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner Jaiprakash @ Golu S/o Bharatlal.

¶32

Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely- 1. Bharatlal S/o Alulal & 2. Jaiprakash @ Golu S/o Bharatla in connection with FIR No.45/2024 registered at Police Station Malarana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, they shall be released 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:-

¶33

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

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:819]

[CRLMB-16186/2024]

(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

¶38

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

¶39

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶40

Keshav/16-17

Jaiprakash @ Golu S/O Bharatlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiprakash @ Golu S/O Bharatlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rizwan Ahmad S/O Mohammad Iqbal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepti Dhadhich W/O Anurag Dhadhich Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanju Kumar S/O Sh. Sahab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Roop Singh Saini S/O Late Shri Mukand Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hamid Khan @ Hamjid S/O Mubarik Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Gurjar @ Durgalal S/O Sukha @ Sukhdev Vs State of Rajasthan