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

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
CHHOTU S/O SHRI RAMCHANDRA JI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB/2332/2022



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2332/2022

Chhotu S/o Shri Ramchandra Ji, Aged About 29 Years, R/o

Jagpura Ps Ananatpura Kota Raj.

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Ms. Shobha Sharma, Adv. for

Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

02/05/2022

The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.444/2021 registered at Police

Station Anantpura, District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections

143, 332, 353 of IPC and Section 3 PDPP Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case. Petitioner was not present at

the time of incident. Nothing is to be recovered from the

petitioner. So, the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted

name of the petitioner is mentioned in the FIR. He further submits

that petitioner and other persons had attacked the complainant

and other persons with lethal weapons while they were on duty.

So, the anticipatory bail be dismissed.

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-2332/2022]

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

Allegation against the petitioner is that petitioner and other

persons armed with lethal weapons and restrained the

complainant and other persons from performing their duties and

they have also attacked on them. So, looking to the gravity of

offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on

anticipatory bail.

Hence, the anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Aks/-66

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top