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

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



Advocates:
Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

Anticipatory bail granted when custodial investigation is not necessary and petitioners are willing to cooperate.

Headnote:(A) B.N.S.S. - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail applications - Petitioners apprehending arrest in FIR No.393/2024 for multiple offences, including serious charges under BNS and IT Act - Petitioners claimed false implication and willingness to cooperate with investigation - Court deemed it appropriate to allow bail applications based on the nature of trial and absence of necessity for custodial investigation. (Paras 1-5)

(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.

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.

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 Back to top