Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sharwanram Bhambhu vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:22015) on 7 May, 2025
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:22015]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4253/2025
Sharwanram Bhambhu S/o Amararam Bhambhu, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Sadhuna, P.s. Panchu, Tehsil Nokha, Dist. Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrimali, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
07/05/2025
1. The instant application for bail has been filed by the
petitioner under Section 482 BNSS (previsouly 438, Cr.P.C.) who
has been arrested in connection with the FIR No.99/2015 dated
01.06.2015 registered at Police Station Panchu District Bikaner for
the offences under Sections 450, 376 and 34, IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
trial Court vide order dated 05.07.2023 has failed to record the
reasons for issuing the warrant of arrest against the petitioner. He
submits that Section 173 Cr.P.C. mandates that before issuing
warrant of arrest, the Courts should assign specific reasons for
doing so. He submits that the petitioner, under the apprehension
that he would be arrested in compliance of the order dated
05.07.2023, preferred anticipatory bail application before the
learned trial Court and the same was rejected vide order dated
21.03.2025. He submits that the learned trial Court while rejecting
[2025:RJ-JD:22015] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4253/2025]
the anticipatory bail application has failed to record the reasons
for rejecting the bail application and has not assigned any valid
reason as to how the petitioner was required to be summoned
through warrant of arrest.
3. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Aman Preet Singh vs. CBI
through Director : 2021 AIR SCC 4154, and submits that in
case, the learned trial Court seeks to exercise the discretion of
issuing warrants of arrest, the Court is required to record reasons
as contemplated under Section 87 Cr.P.C. that the accused has
either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has
refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon
him.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the learned trial Court while
dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner has
specifically observed vide order dated 05.07.2023 that the Court
has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 376
and 450 read with Section 34 of IPC upon finding prima facie case
being made out against the petitioner and the petitioner was
summoned through warrant of arrest but he did not remain
present and the learned trial Court after taking into consideration
order dated 04.02.2025, has also observed that mobile number of
the petitioner was also switched off and thus, the learned trial
Court after recording the reasons, has dismissed the bail
application of the petitioner.
[2025:RJ-JD:22015] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4253/2025]
5. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has rightly
passed the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 while giving a
specific finding that the petitioner did not present himself before
the learned trial Court since 05.07.2023 despite the summon of
warrant of arrest being issued against him and also the same
could not be served upon the petitioner as his mobile number was
switched off.
6. It is also seen that vide order dated 05.07.2023, the learned
trial Court, after finding prima facie case made out against the
petitioner under Section 376, 450 read with Section 34 of IPC, has
taken cognizance and issued warrant of arrest against the
petitioner and thus, taking into consideration that the offence
under Section 376 IPC has prima facie been found to be proved
against the petitioner, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit
case to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.
7. As a consequence, the instant bail application filed under
Section 482 BNSS is dismissed.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
248-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
