Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 804
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
IRSAD S/O AASMOHAMMAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 2096 / 2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
IT Act : S.66D,S.67a
PDPP Act : S.3
Headnote
(B) Bail - Conditions for anticipatory bail - Petitioners required to furnish personal bond and sureties, remain available for interrogation, and not influence witnesses or leave the country without permission. (Paras 6)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in connection with a case involving multiple serious offences, asserting false implication and readiness to cooperate with the investigation.
Findings of Court:
The court found it just to grant anticipatory bail given the circumstances of the case and the nature of the trial.
Issues: The main issues included whether custodial investigation was necessary and the credibility of the petitioners' claims of false implication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that since the matter was triable by Magistrate and custodial investigation was not required, the anticipatory bail was justified.
Result: Anticipatory bail applications allowed.
Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP
Order :
1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.393/2024 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 121(1), 132 and 61(2)(b) of BNS and Sections 66D & 67a of IT Act and Section 3 of PDPP Act , the petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate. It is also contended that custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required and they are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, therefore, these anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail applications.
4. Heard and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the fact that the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate and custodial investigation of the petitioners is not required and they are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail applications of the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely- 1. Irsad S/o Aasmohammad 2. Shokin S/o Jabru 3. Mustkim S/o Jagrup & 4. Soyam S/o Fakru, in connection with FIR No.393/2024 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- 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 petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.
