Allowed

Salim S/O Tahir v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Feb 2025CRLMB/1857/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two applicants sought anticipatory bail for offences under BNS and IT Act sections in connection with an FIR at Police Station Kaithwara. The court granted bail on arrest, requiring personal bonds with sureties, subject to availability for interrogation, no inducement or threat to witnesses, and no departure from India without permission.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; release on arrest upon personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to interrogation availability and standard conditions.

Salim S/O Tahir Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1856/2025

¶3

Hafeez S/o Hajar Khan, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Khohra, Police Station Kethwara, District Deeg.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1857/2025 Salim S/o Tahir, R/o Village Khohra, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg.

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sanjay Khan
	Mr. Ankit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶16

Order

¶17

06/02/2025

¶18

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.172/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 111(2)(a), 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2) and 61(2)(a) of B.N.S. and Sections 66D and 66E of IT Act, the petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioners have been named by other co-accused, who have

¶20

[CRLMB-1856/2025]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

already been enlarged on regular bail by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2024. It is also contended that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and the trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time. It is also contended that custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required and they are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, therefore, the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes these anticipatory bail applications.

¶24

Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that the mobile phones, ATM cards etc. were recovered from the possession of other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail and custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow these anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners.

¶25

Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely- 1. Hafeez S/o Hajar Khan 2. Salim S/o Tahir, in connection with FIR No. 172/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg, shall be released on bail, provided both of them furnishes 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:-

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMB-1856/2025]

¶28

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

¶29

(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

¶30

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

¶31

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶32

DEEPA RANI -16-17

Salim S/O Tahir v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim S/O Tahir 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

Nepal Singh S/O Alkar Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Singhal Son of Om Prakash Singhal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuveer @ Dhaniya S/O Kanchanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumari Malti Ghanshyam Kalariya D/O Shri Ghanshyam Gokuldas Kalariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Nikhil Gurjar S/O Mukesh Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Monti Dholi S/O Shri Mahaveer Vs State of Rajasthan