Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36699 (RAJ)

MOHAMMAD KHAN S/O KALLU v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/8981/2025 · 2025-11-14

Pramil Kumar Mathur

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:45924] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8981/2025 Mohammad Khan S/o Kallu, R/o Pilsu, P.s. Gopalgarh, District Deeg (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S S Solanki with Mr. Ramesh Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 14/11/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in FIR No.02/2023 registered at Police Station Gopalgarh, District Bharatpur now in Deeg for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 379, 336, 354, 307 and 427 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner Mohammad Khan is a government servant and due to political reason a false and concocted FIR has been lodged against him. He argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, hence the bail application may be allowed. 4. On the contrary, learned Public Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the FIR there are specific allegations against the petitioner. He urged that offence under Section 307 is serious in [2025:RJ-JP:45924] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8981/2025] nature having prima facie involvement of the present petitioner. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and in light of submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor especially the fact of involvement of the petitioner, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg /203