Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 18624 (RAJ)

MOHAMMAD EZAJ S/O MOHAMMAD AHMED v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/12053/2025 · 2026-01-09

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:937] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12053/2025 Mohammad Ezaj S/o Mohammad Ahmed, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nahargarh, Police Station Nahargarh, District Baran (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Swati Sharma for Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/01/2026 1. This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.144-9/2025 registered at Forest Department, Range Shahabad, Forest Division, Baran, District Baran for the offences under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case merely on the basis of interrogation report of co-accused, namely, Mahesh and Golu who have been caught on the spot with the wooden stick. She further submits that the co-accused who have caught on the [2026:RJ-JP:937] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12053/2025] spot with the wooden stick have named the present accused- petitioner and one Jeetu for being involved in the alleged crime. She further submits that the co-accused-Jeetu has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Court below. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner so also considering the fact that the other co-accused, namely, Jeetu has already been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail by the learned Court below and the case of the present accused-petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of co-accused, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case deems just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioner named above in connection with FIR No.144-9/2025 registered at Forest Department, Range Shahabad, Forest Division, Baran shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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; [2026:RJ-JP:937] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12053/2025] (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 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. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /257