Hanumanram Bhambu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19791)
2025 Latest Caselaw 12187 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Hanumanram Bhambu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19791) on 24 April, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:19791]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3233/2025

1.        Hanumanram Bhambu S/o Premaram, Aged About 46
          Years, R/o Sarasani P.s. Rol, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
2.        Hira Bhambu S/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
          Sarasani P.s. Rol, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
3.        Kamal Bhambu S/o Shivji Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
          Sarasani P.s. Rol, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
4.        Trilok Ram Meghwal S/o Amara Ram, Aged About 26
          Years, R/o Sarasani P.s. Rol, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
5.        Prem Nath S/o Roop Nath, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
          Sarasani P.s. Rol, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)
                                                                       ----Petitioners
                                        Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.        Nilesh Mishra S/o D.k. Mishra, R/o Sadar Bazar Cantt,
          Jabalpur, Thana Cantt, Jabalpur (Mp), Presently Deputy
          Manager Security, Jsw Cement Ltd., Bhadana, Thana
          Sadar, Nagaur.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Kshitij Vyas
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

24/04/2025

1. The factual report dated 21.04.2025 received by the learned

Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Rol, District Nagaur

in taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material as made available to this Court as well as gone through

the niceties of the matter.

3. There are allegations in the FIR regarding beating to the

victim-respondent No.2 and restraining him from moving in

certain directions, which is disclosing the commission of

[2025:RJ-JD:19791] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3233/2025]

cognizable offence. The investigating agency during the course of

investigation has also found the offences under Sections 189(2),

126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 352 and 308(4) of BNS to be proved

against the present petitioners.

4. In the opinion of this Court, since the FIR is disclosing the

commission of cognizable offence thus, no case for quashing of

FIR is made out against the present petitioners.

5. This Court upon a perusal of the case file prima facie finds

that the offences alleged to have been committed by the

petitioners are either triable by a court of Magistrate and/or 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 petitioners is found to be absolutely necessary by

the Investigating Agencies, instead of affecting the arrest of the

petitioners 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

petitioners is not precluded from raising his grievance before the

trial Court.

6. 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 23-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)