SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1798

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Akash Gujar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Bhushan Singh Charan, Advocate, Anita Gehlot, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - Lawyers are not appearing in the Court in view of the unprecedented situation being faced by the country due to pandemic of novel corona virus (COVID-19).

2. The present application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.143/2021, Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 379, 467, 468, 120B of IPC read with Section 4/21 MMDR act.

3. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

5. Having regard to the nature of accusation, the gravity of the offence, material on record in support thereof and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to extend the benefit under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

6. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is ready to surrender before the concerned court, which may consider his bail applica

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top