Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 33767 (RAJ)

MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O NANDKISHORE SHARMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15650/2023 · 2025-02-17

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:6901] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15650/2023 Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Nandkishore Sharma, R/o Bheruji Mohalla, Morpa, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Govind Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Ramkalyan Yadav, R/o Morpa, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents 3. Rameshwar Yadav S/o Shri Ramkalyan Yadav, R/o Morpa, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota (Raj.) ----Victim/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Rajeesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/02/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of his arrest in connection with FIR No.228/2023 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota (Rural) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 308 and 506 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that although there is allegation against the petitioner of causing sharp injury on the head of injured namely- Rameshwar Prasad Yadav but the said injury has been opined as simple in nature. It is submitted that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. Counsel submits that except one criminal antecedent, there are no criminal [2025:RJ-JP:6901] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15650/2023] antecedents of the petitioner and in that case also he has been acquitted vide order dated 08.12.2019. Counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of petitioner is not required in this matter. 3. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. 4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties & injuries attributed to the petitioner has been opined as simple in nature, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to allow this anticipatory bail application. 5. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural in FIR No.228/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner – Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Nandkishore Sharma, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:6901] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15650/2023] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /35