Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Dilip - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16607/2019
Decided on : 31-08-2021
Anticipatory Bail - Falsely Implicated Government Servant - Denial of Pre-arrest Bail
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving multiple IPC sections for causing grievous injuries. The petitioner claimed false implication due to being a government servant and absence from the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injuries sustained were severe and attributed to the petitioner, with the weapon of offence yet to be recovered. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's pre-arrest bail application.
Issues: Implication of the petitioner in the case, severity of injuries, and the need for custodial interrogation
Ratio Decidendi: The severity of the injuries and the attribution of the injuries to the petitioner influenced the court's decision to deny pre-arrest bail.
Final Decision: The bail application was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted pre-arrest bail.
JUDGMENT
1. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No. 309/2019 registered at Police Station Sapotara District Karauli for the offence(s) under Section(s) 323, 341 & 34 IPC and later on for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 307, 34 IPC.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely because he happens to be a government servant otherwise he was not present at the place of incident. He submitted that it is a case of version and cross version. He submitted that in pursuance of direction of this Court, he has appeared before the Investigating Officer for interrogation and his interrogation note does not reveal his implication in this case and prayed for release of the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. The injury reports of injured Rameshwar and Kailash reveal that they have received grievous injures on their person with sharp edged weapon. Injuries on the person of Kailash have been found to be dangerous to life. The complainant as well as the injured have attributed the injuries to the petitioner. Weapon of offence is yet to be recovered. Hence, it cannot be held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not warranted.
6. In view thereof, this Court does not deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.
7. The bail application is dismissed accordingly.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
