Ganesh vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9320 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:38881]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12822/2023

1. Ganesh S/o Gopal Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Indrapura Tilswa Ps Bijoliya Dist. Bhilwara

2. Satish S/o Onkar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Suthar Mohalla Rana Ji Ka Guda Ps Bijoliya Dist. Bhlwara

3. Vikram S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Keero Ka Mohalla Salwatiya Ps Bijoliya Dist. Bhilwara

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Amit S/o Kailash Chandra, R/o Chandji Ki Khedi Ps Bijoliya Dist. Bhilwara

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhushan Singh Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Singh, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

08/11/2023

1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of

filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of

accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

tabulated herein below:

S.No.                         Particulars of the Case
     1.    FIR Number                            291/2023
     2.    Concerned Police Station              Bijoliya
     3.    District                              Bhilwara
     4.    Offences alleged in the FIR           Sections 341, 323, 327 and
                                                 34 of the IPC
     5.    Offences added, if any                -
     6.    Date   of    passing              of 05.10.2023
           impugned order




 [2023:RJ-JD:38881]                       (2 of 3)                     [CRLMB-12822/2023]


2.    Having     apprehension           of    being      arrested       in    the    afore-

mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail

on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out

against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no

factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of

anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made

an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail

application and submit that the present case is not fit for grant of

anticipatory bail.

5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties

and have perused the material available on record. It is not a

case where custodial interrogation would be required. The

offences involved in case are triable by a Court of Magistrate, for

which the provisions contained under Section 41 and 41A of the

CrPC are applicable mutatis mutandis and the judgment rendered

by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State

of Bihar [AIR 2014 SC 2756] applies squarely in the present

case, where custodial investigation would not be required.

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438

Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the

concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of

the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have

been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,

provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the

[2023:RJ-JD:38881] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12822/2023]

satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned

Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

(FARJAND ALI),J 282-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)