Allowed

Abhimanyu Ydadav S/O Raj Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2025CRLMB/9007/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner against arrest in an FIR involving IPC offences. The court granted bail subject to furnishing a bond and conditions. No detailed reasoning on merits was provided.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each on specified conditions.

Abhimanyu Ydadav S/O Raj Singh Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5183]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9007/2024

¶4

Abhimanyu Yadav S/o Raj Singh Yadav, R/o Village Naharkheda, Post Khanpur Ahir, Tehsil Mundawar, Police Station Mundawar, Dist. Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) .

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

05/02/2025

¶13

The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in F.I.R. No.262/2023 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 435 & 511 of IPC.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that initially, FIR was registered for the bailable offences and later on, to make out the non-bailable offences, offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC has been added during the course of investigation. Counsel submits that from bare reading of the FIR, no offence under Section 436 IPC is made out. Counsel submits that petitioner is ready to co-operate with the

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:5183]

[CRLMB-9007/2024]

investigation. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not served any fruitful purpose.

¶19

Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and further considering averments made in the FIR wherein it has been mentioned that one person tried to set fire in the cabin, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) in F.I.R. No.262/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Abhimanyu Yadav S/o Raj Singh Yadav, he shall be released on bail, provided he 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:-

¶23

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

¶24

(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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:5183]

[CRLMB-9007/2024]

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶29

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

¶30

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶31

LALIT MOHAN /269

Abhimanyu Ydadav S/O Raj Singh Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhimanyu Ydadav S/O Raj Singh Yadav 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

Rajkumar S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balvindra Singh S/O Soudan Singh @ Sohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Mali @ Raju Kaka S/O Moolchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Kartar S/O Ramanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prabhulal S/O Dhulilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Devendra Singh S/O Suraj Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics