MOHAMMAD JAVED KHAN @ AKRAM S/O SHRI ACCHAN KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/3976/2025 · 2025-04-03
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11862 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11862 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:14992] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3976/2025 Mohammad Javed Khan @ Akram S/o Shri Acchan Khan, Aged About 99 Years, R/o H.no. 478, 30 Foota Road, Near Bilal Basjid, Askok Vihar, Loni Dehat, Gaziabad (U.p.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Ms. Akrati Chaturvedi with Mr. Rajesh Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/04/2025
1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in F.I.R. No.517/2024 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur (West) (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence and he was simply a middleman. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case.
[2025:RJ-JP:14992] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3976/2025]
3. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submits that petitioner is duly named in the FIR and he actively participated in commission of offence.
4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the role attributed to the accused petitioner in the offences alleged in the instant case, I am not inclined to extend indulgence of anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner.
5. Accordingly, this pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /250