Rajasthan High Court
Mr. Mehmooda S/O Mr Rehmat vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:9523) on 26 February, 2024
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2024:RJ-JP:9523]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 2169/2024
1. Mr. Mehmooda S/o Mr Rehmat, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Village Khedawas Kaithwara Police Station Kaithwara,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Mr. Hamid Ahmed S/o Mr Rehmat, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Village Khedawas Kaithwara Police Station Kaithwara,
District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Jagesh Joshi
Mr. Sankalp Sogani
Mr. Umang Jain
Ms. Muskan Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
26/02/2024
1. This second pre-arrest bail application has been filed under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are having
apprehension of their arrest in connection with FIR No.225/2023
registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, Bharatpur
for the offences under Sections 420, 270, 272 & 308 of IPC and
Section 48 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that accused-
petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is further
submits that petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged
offences. It is further submitted that FIR No.225/2023 has been
[2024:RJ-JP:9523] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2169/2024]
registered under Sections 420, 270, 272 & 308 of IPC and Section
48 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It is contended
that the instant FIR has been registered without any authority and
without following necessary procedure of law. It is further
contended that petitioners are businessmen and are not hard core
criminals. Hence, the petitioners deserve to be granted bail on the
facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Pepsico India Holdings (Pvt) Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. and Ors, 2010 SCC Online All 1708.
(ii) Silver Drop Foods and Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Assam, MANU/GH/0402/2019.
(iii) Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. And Ors. Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 15 SCC 93.
(iv) Prahlad Raghuvanshi and Ors. Vs. State of M.P.,
MANU/MP/0492/2013.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and
he craves for dismissal of the bail application.
4. First anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was
considered on 12.01.2024 and after hearing arguments advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the
petitioners sought permission to withdraw the bail application and
same was dismissed as not pressed. Now, this second bail
application has been filed for the same relief, which was not
granted in earlier bail application. After rejection of first bail
application, except change of counsel, no other change in
[2024:RJ-JP:9523] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2169/2024]
circumstances has occasioned, therefore, I am not inclined to
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
CHARU SONI /42
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
