Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34464 (RAJ)

FIROZ S/O HUSSAIN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15637/2024 · 2025-02-21

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:7843] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15637/2024 Firoz S/o Hussain, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Multanpura P.s. Baidinagar, Distt. Mandsaur M.p. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined District Jail Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.247/2023 registered at Police Station Dooni, District Tonk (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6, 8 & 9 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration of Export) Act, 1995 and Section 11(1)(D) of Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly petitioner was not at the spot. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its completion. Petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:7843] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15637/2024] 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 15 other cases have been registered against him including 9 cases which are of similar nature and in three cases he has been convicted. Thus, bail should not be granted to him. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that number of cases have been registered against the petitioner and in three cases he has been convicted, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 6. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /427