Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 May, 2024
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:24120]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9499/2023
1. Ajay Kumar S/o Satpal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Rajawali, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka (Punjab)
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Bhup Ram, Aged About 43 Years,
R/o 11 Tk, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11562/2023
Sagar S/o Sh. Ram Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chack 22 Ps
Tehsil Raisinghnagar Dist. Sriganganagar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kaushal Gautam.
Mr. L.K. Ramdhari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.R. Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 27/05/2024
Pronounced on 30/05/2024
1. Since both the instant anticipatory bail applications under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. arise out of common FIR No.220/2020
registered at Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar for
the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 447, 147, 148 & 149
of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with which
[2024:RJ-JD:24120] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9499/2023]
the petitioners are apprehending their arrest, therefore, the
instant bail applications have been heard together and are being
decided by this common order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that none of
the present petitioners were named in the FIR, but despite the
same, the police is trying to arrest the petitioners, while falsely
implicating them in the present case, and that, the investigation is
kept pending against the petitioners under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the main accused in
this case has not disclosed the name of the present petitioners in
his information given under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, but still the petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with the FIR in question.
2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that qua the present
petitioners, interim orders from arrest are operating in favour of
the petitioners.
2.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioners are
ready and willing to extend due cooperation in the investigation,
and in case they are granted bail, they would abide by the
conditions thereof and would not abscond themselves.
3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the
bail applications, and submitted that since the investigation is
pending qua the petitioners under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and
under the garb of interim orders, the petitioners are not extending
their due cooperation in the investigation, and thus, at this stage,
they are not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:24120] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9499/2023]
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as
perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that as per the
latest Charge-Sheet/Final Report No.03 dated 04.05.2024, the
offence has been found to be made out against the other co-
accused persons, and that, the investigation is pending against
the present petitioners on count of the interim orders dated
17.08.2023 and 13.10.2023, respectively, as revealed from the
said charge-sheet.
5. Thus, looking into the heinous nature of the offence in
question and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances
of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present
petitioners at this stage.
6. Consequently, the present bail applications under Section
438 Cr.P.C. are dismissed. Since the investigation against the
present petitioners is pending on count of the aforesaid interim
orders, therefore, the interim orders dated 17.08.2023 (Bail
Application No.9499/2023) & 13.10.2023 (Bail Application
No.11562/2023) stand vacated. All pending application stand
disposed of.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
skant/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
