Irfan @ Banna vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3657 Raj

[2023/RJJD/012264]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 366/2023

Irfan @ Banna S/o Ashraf Khan @ Tida, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Kalesat Police Station Ghantaghar, Udaipur.

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

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaitan Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Judgment

26/04/2023

The present anticipatory bail application has been preferred

by the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR

No. 344/2022 of Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur for the

offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 449, 302, 149 IPC

and Section 4/25, 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is submitted

that there is no material available on record to connect the

petitioner with the alleged offences. It is also submitted that the

petitioner has not been named in the FIR and no specific

allegation has been levelled against him by any of the witnesses.

Thus, it is submitted that there is no requirement of the petitioner

for custodial interrogation and therefore, the petitioner may be

granted anticipatory bail.

[2023/RJJD/012264] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-366/2023]

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer

made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public

Prosecutor submitted that as per the factual report, the

Investigating Agency has prima facie found that offences under

Section 147, 148, 449, 302, 149 IPC are made out against the

present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a

habitual offender and as many as 10 cases are pending trial

against him. Thus, it is prayed that the present bail application

under Section 438 CrPC may be rejected.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly the fact that the Investigation Agency has prima facie

found that the offences under Section 147, 148, 449, 302, 149

IPC are made out against the present petitioner and looking into

the gravity of the offence, without commenting on the merits or

demerits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant

anticipatory bail to the present petitioner.

6. Consequently, the present bail application under Section

438, CrPC is rejected.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J 104-Bharti/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)