Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7966 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 13/2021

Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Tulchiram, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Jeengar, R/o Phaphriya, Near Hanuman Temple, Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2. Jagdish Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 43 Years, Bhinmal, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

3. Jethmal S/o Shri Kapoorchand, Aged About 37 Years, Bhinmal, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

4. Talab Khan S/o Shri Raju Khan, Aged About 38 Years, Bhinmal, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Dr. Nupur Bhati

For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

                               Mr.   Vineet             Jain     for    private
                               respondent/s



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

22/03/2021

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the trial court has grossly erred in granting benefit of

anticipatory bail to the private respondents. It is argued

that the trial court has ignored the statements of the

(2 of 2)

prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 CrPC and has

wrongly observed that the offences, for which, the

investigation is going on against the private respondents

is carrying sentence of less than seven years. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has, thus, argued that the order

of the trial court granting benefit of anticipatory bail to

the private respondents may be set aside.

Per contra, learned counsel for the private

respondents has opposed the bail cancellation application

and argued that from the material available on record, it

cannot be said that the private respondents have

committed any offence. It is also argued that though the

trial court may have wrongly observed that the offences,

for which, the investigation is pending against the private respondents is carrying sentence of less than seven

years, but has rightly observed that from the material

collected by the police during the course of investigation,

the custodial interrogation of the private respondents is

not at all necessary as there are serious doubts about

their role in the commission of crime.

Having gone through the charge-sheet filed by the

police against co-accused Manish Kumar @ Bhoota Ram,

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,

this bail cancellation application is dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

20 - ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)