Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Tahir S/O Hola vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2022

Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5904/2022

1.      Tahir S/o Hola, R/o Masjid Ky Pas, Doha 94 Mewat P.s.
        Firozpur Zhirka, Haryana
2.      Aasu S/o Hola, R/o Masjid Ky Pas, Doha 94 Mewat P.s.
        Firozpur Zhirka, Haryana
3.      Shoyb S/o Tahir, R/o Masjid Ky Pas, Doha 94 Mewat P.s.
        Firozpur Zhirka, Haryana
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Arafat Hussain
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP
                                Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                    Order

08/07/2022

1.    The present bail application has been filed under Section 438

Cr. P.C. in connection with FIR No.13/2022 registered at Police

Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for the offence under

Sections 420, 406 IPC.

2.    Learned   counsel       for   the    petitioners          submits   that   the

petitioners have been wrongly implicated in this case. They had

joined the investigation as per direction of this court. Case

pertains to civil nature. Nothing is to be recovered from the

petitioners. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

3.    Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the

complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned



                    (Downloaded on 11/07/2022 at 09:51:07 PM)
                                                                          (2 of 2)                   [CRLMB-5904/2022]



                                   counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioners had

                                   taken fraudulently Rs.1,58,97,000/- and had not returned the

                                   money to the complainant. So, looking to the gravity of offence,

                                   bail be dismissed.

                                   4.     I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

                                   counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as

                                   well as learned Public Prosecutor.

5. Looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

6. Hence, anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Brijesh 99.

(Downloaded on 11/07/2022 at 09:51:07 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)