Imran Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7954 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 3295/2021

Imran Hussain S/o Mohammed Yusuf, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of 435, Raza Colony, Mulla Talai, Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dalip Singh Rajvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

22/03/2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the

learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on

record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.480/2016 of

Police Station Ambamata for the offences punishable under

Sections 365, 327, 395, 397, 377 IPC. He has preferred this bail

application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

only ground on which the petitioner moved this bail application is

that the complainant- Rajendra Teli is not appearing before the

trial court for giving his evidence though his statements in-chief

had already been completed in 2017. It is, therefore, prayed that

in view of the fact that the complainant- Rajendra Teli is not

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-3295/2021]

appearing before the trial court for giving his evidence, the

petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

bail application and submitted that the trial court is making every

effort to summon the complainant- Rajendra Teli and other

prosecution witnesses and in this regard, arrest warrants have

also been issued. It is also submitted that the prosecution will also

make every effort to produce the prosecution witness available for

giving their evidence. It is further submitted that the complainant

Rajendra Teili (PW1) in his statement-in-chief has specifically

alleged that it is the petitioner, who was the principal accused in

the case and taking into consideration the said fact, the petitioner

is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after

going through the material available on record, without expressing

any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant

bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected, however, it is expected that

the trial court shall make every effort to complete the prosecution

witnesses at the earliest.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

21-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)