Raj Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 14555 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14611/2022

Raj Kumar S/o Bajrang Lal Soni, Aged About 62 Years, Near Kala Bal Mandir, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14612/2022 1 Sri Ram S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 23 Years, Near Kala Bal Mandir, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.). 2 R. Jai Ram S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 27 Years, Near Kala Bal Mandir, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.). 3 Jai Jai Ram S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 22 Years, Near Kala Bal Mandir, Sujangarh, Dist. Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Bishoni, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

12/12/2022

Both the criminal misc. bail applications have been preferred

by the applicants against the order dated 7.11.2022 passed by the

learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Sujangarh, District Churu arising

out of FIR No.298/2022 registered at Police Station, Sujangarh,

District Churu for the offences punishable under Sections 332,

353, 336, 427 and 143 of the IPC.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-14611/2022]

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that

the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case

and no offence as alleged against them has been committed by

them. Learned counsel for the applicants thus, prayed that the

applicants may be granted indulgence of anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the

learned counsel for the applicants.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the

case diary.

A bare perusal of the case diary as well as the factual report

produced by the investigating officer, it is revealed that the

accused applicants not only pelted stones over the police team but

also tore the uniform of the officials in the alleged incident and the

investigating officer prima facie found that the offences under

Sections 332, 353, 436 and 143 of the IPC and under Section 3 of

the PDPP Act are made out against the accused applicants.

In view of the above, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant

of indulgence of anticipatory bail to the accused applicants.

Hence, both the bail applications are hereby dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 161-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)