Shankar Khan vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6769 Raj

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
              S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 155/2022
1.      Shankar Khan S/o Seu Khan, Aged About 78 Years, B/c
        Dadhi Musalman R/o Kesardesar Jalan Dist. Bikaner Raj.
2.      Soni W/o Shankar Khan, Aged About 75 Years, B/c Dadhi
        Musalman R/o Kesardesar Jalan Dist. Bikaner Raj.
3.      Idu Khan S/o Shankar Khan, Aged About 49 Years, B/c
        Dadhi Musalman R/o Kesardesar Jalan Dist. Bikaner Raj.
4.      Khatun W/o Idu Khan, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Dadhi
        Musalman R/o Kesardesar Jalan Dist. Bikaner Raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Thruogh Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. D.D. Chitlangi
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

                                      Order

07/05/2022

     In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread

of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being

maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety

of all concerned.

     The petitioners herein have preferred filed this criminal writ

petition claiming for the following reliefs :


     "The impugned orders dated 18.12.2020 passed by learned
     Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bikaner as well as judgment dated
     02.03.2019 passed by the Gram Nyayalaya, Bikaner may kindly be
     quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be acquitted from the
     offences."



                      (Downloaded on 11/05/2022 at 08:31:19 PM)
                                                                                                    (2 of 2)



                                         Counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioners established

                                   their possession on the land in-question, thus, their conviction for

                                   offence under Section 448, 34 of IPC, though, benefit of Section

                                   4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act has been given, is wrong.

                                         This Court observes that concurrent findings of courts below

                                   is there and benefit of probation has been given, thus, no cause of

                                   interference is made out. The criminal writ petition is dismissed.



                                                                (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

113-Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)