Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harsh vs State on 17 November, 2021
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11772/2021
Harsh S/o Sh. Vikram Jeet, Aged About 20 Years, R/o 3 ML,
Sriganganagar, District Sriganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10150/2021
Radha Krishan S/o Shri Roopchand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Fassewala, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, AGC
For complainant Mr. Rakesh Matoria
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
17/11/2021
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned
Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR
No.246/2021 of Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar
for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 341, 323, 147 &
149 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the complainant
has implicated the petitioners in the criminal case as complainant
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-11772/2021]
is having matrimonial dispute with his wife Sarwya @ Sarwja and
petitioner Harsh is brother and petitioner Radha Krishan is Fufa of
Sarwya @ Sarwja. Counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that on the instance of petitioners, the criminal case were lodged
against the complainant, therefore as a counter blast he has
lodged the present FIR. It has been submitted that there is no
motive to kidnap the complainant and whole case is falsely
conducted.
Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the co-
accused Sarwya @ Sarwja has already granted anticipatory bail
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 23.07.2021. therefore, the petitioners may also
be granted same benefit.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail application and on the basis of case diary, submitted that as
per statements of complainant and other witnesses, petitioners
came on the vehicle and kidnapped him in a pre-planned manner
and also gave beatings to him. The injury report also shows that
he received the injuries.
Counsel for the complainant has also opposed the bail
application.
The present bail application is arise out of offence under
Section 364 Cr.P.C. wherein the punishment is provided in
imprisonment for life rigorous imprisonment and 10 years and the
offence triable by the court of Sessions.
The Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. vs. State (NCT) & Anr. (2020)
5 SCC 1 has affirmed and reiterated principle governing the law of
grant/refusal of pre-arrest bail as propounded in case of
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-11772/2021]
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC
565. The relevant paragraph No.7.2 of the said judgment reads as
follows:-
"1. The Power under Section 438 Criminal
Procedure Code, is of an extraordinary character
and must be exercised springy in exceptional cases
only;
xxxxxxxxxx
6. The discretion under Section 438 cannot be
exercised with regard to offences punishable with
death or imprisonment for life unless the court at
that very stage is satisfied that such a charge
appears to be false or groundless."
In the present case, as per the statements of complainant
and other witnesses and injury report of complainant, it may not
be assume prima-facie that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated in the present case. Previous animosity between the
parties is not disputed fact. Thus, considering the seriousness
nature of offence and prima-facie evidence on record, this Court
does not find the present case fit for granting anticipatory bail to
the petitioners.
As far as Sarwya @ Sarwja is concerned, she is a lady and if
the co-ordinate Bench has granted anticipatory bail to her, both
the petitioners may not claim the parity with Sarwya @ Sarwja.
Accordingly, these bail applications preferred by the
petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
120-Anshul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
