Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7102 (RAJ)

SATTAR S/O AMAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/2282/2025 · 2025-03-03

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:9056] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2282/2025 Sattar S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Rundh Khoh, Police Station Khoh, District Deeg (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 03/03/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 235/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 303(2), 308(2), 313, 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 66-D of IT Act, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the recovery of sim cards and mobile phones etc. were effected from the possession of other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He further submits that custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are exclusively tribale by Magistrate and petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:9056] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2282/2025] ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail applications. 4. I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. 5. Looking to the fact that recovery of sim cards and mobile phones etc. were effected from the possession of other co- accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. Custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are exclusively triable by Magistrate and accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail applications of the accused-petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Sattar S/o Amar Singh, in connection with FIR No. 235/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg he shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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:9056] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2282/2025] 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. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /30