Harpal Singh S/O Kedar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2849 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2588/2023

1.      Harpal Singh S/o Kedar Singh, R/o Nagla Bhanwra, Police
        Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur.
2.      Ajeet S/o Kedar, R/o Nagla Bhanwra, Police Station
        Chiksana, District Bharatpur.
3.      Vanay Singh S/o Jyoti, R/o Nagla Bhanwra, Police Station
        Chiksana, District Bharatpur.
4.      Hardam S/o Man Singh, R/o Nagla Bhanwra, Police
        Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)         :    None Present
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

14/03/2023

1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioners.

2. Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the

Court in judicial proceedings since last more than three weeks,

though, they have no grievance against the Court Administration.

3. The Apex Court in the judgment of Harish Uppal Vs. Union

Of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 observed that

non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one,

rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial

matters according to the law even in the absence of the parties

and/or their Advocates.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-2588/2023]

4. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioners

under Section 438 Cr. P.C. in connection with FIR No.473/2022

registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur for the

offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 IPC (later on offence(s)

under Sections 323, 341, 308, 325 and 452 IPC was found to have

been made out).

5. Petitioners in their pleadings mentioned that they have been

falsely implicated in this case. Charge-sheet has been filed against

the petitioners and nothing is to be recovered from them. So, the

petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application

and submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed against the

petitioners and they have not complied with the notice given to

them under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C. So, the bail application filed

by the petitioners be dismissed.

7. I have considered the pleadings of the petitioners as well as

arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor.

8. Since, charge-sheet has already been filed against the

petitioners in the court concerned, so, anticipatory bail filed by the

petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, the criminal misc. bail

application stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/49

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)