MUJIBURREHMAN MANSURI S/O JALIL AHMED v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/10408/2024 · 2025-03-25
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28418 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 28418 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:13544] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10408/2024 Mujiburrehman Mansuri S/o Jalil Ahmed, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Chhipabarod, Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2025
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.361/2024 registered at Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(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 dispute arose between the parties when garlic in question was found less in the weight. Counsel submits that vide order dated 26.11.2024, petitioner was directed to join the investigation and in terms of the said order, petitioner has already joined the investigation. Counsel submits that there no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:13544] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10408/2024]
3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. However, he fairly conceded the fact that petitioner has joined the investigation in terms of order dated
26.11.2024. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner, as also the fact that petitioner has joined the investigation; nature of dispute; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.
The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran (Rajasthan) in F.I.R. No.361/2024 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Mujiburrehman Mansuri S/o Jalil Ahmed, 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 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
[2025:RJ-JP:13544] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10408/2024] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /281