Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19176) on 21 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:19176]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2569/2025
Suresh S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Phirod Nagaur
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Mehta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
21/04/2025
The instant misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS (482
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following
reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that present
Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the proceeding in
FIR No. 20/2025 registered at Police Station Jayal, Nagaur
for offences under Section 318(4) BNS read with 16, 54 and
54D of Rajasthan Excise Act may be quashed and set
aside..."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
offences alleged to have been committed are triable by Magistrate
and the petitioner has no relation with manufacturing of spurious
liquor in question and thus prayed that the FIR in question may be
quashed qua the petitioner.
In the alternative, learned counsel made an oral prayer for
directing the investigating agencies to conduct fair and impartial
investigation into the matter.
[2025:RJ-JD:19176] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2569/2025]
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigating
agency is already conducting fair and impartial investigation,
however, if any material is brought on record by the petitioner, the
same shall be considered by the prosecution strictly in accordance
with law before completing the investigation.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
In light of the aforesaid assurance of the Public Prosecutor,
the present misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the
petitioner to submit the representation before the concerned
Superintendent of Police as well as Investigating Officer, who shall
deal with his representation strictly in accordance with law.
This Court upon a perusal of the case file prima facie finds
that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner
are triable by a court of Magistrate which do not contain the
maximum punishment of more than seven years, and keeping in
mind the provisions contained in Section 41, 41-A Cr.P.C. as well
as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC
2756, the dictum of which squarely apply mutatis mutandis to the
present case, it is directed that in case, the arrest of the petitioner
is found to be absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies,
instead of affecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a prior
notice of one month shall be given to him so that he may exercise
his rights. Needless, to say that the petitioner is not precluded
from raising his grievance before the trial Court.
[2025:RJ-JD:19176] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2569/2025]
With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition filed under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay application are
disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
81-himanshu/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
