MUKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: FARJAND ALI
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2024-03-06. MUKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2024:RJ-JD:11429] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2717/2024 Mukesh S/o Shri Dadu Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Pichiyak, Ps Bilara, Dist Jodhpur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. SK Bhati, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 06/03/2024 1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 28/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Bilara 3. District Jodhpur Rural 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 379 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of 02. 02. 2024 impugned order 2.
Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of [2024:RJ-JD:11429] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2717/2024] anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. There seems to be a bonfide dispute with regard to sale of a cow. The offence involved in case is triable by a Court of Magistrate. It is not a case where custodial interrogation would be required. 6.
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. is allowed. The S. H. O/I. O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S. H. O/I.
O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself [2024:RJ-JD:11429] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2717/2024] available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (FARJAND ALI),J 144-divya/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.