Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahesh Jatav And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan Through P P on 21 July, 2017
Author: Pankaj Bhandari
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 9578 / 2017
1. Mahesh Jatav S/o Pritam B/c Jatav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Hanotiya
2. Parsadi Jatav S/o Phosu B/c Jatav, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Village Hanotiya
3. Ramesh Jatav S/o Devilal B/c Jatav, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Village Hanotiya
4. Pritam Jatav S/o Choukhaiya B/c Jatav, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Village Hanotiya
5. Kalyan Jatav S/o Sharvan B/c Jatav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Village Hanotiya
6. Jagdish Jatav S/o Gajanlal B/c Jatav, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Hanotiya
7. Ramdayal Jatav S/o Navalu B/c Jatav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Musradi
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dhanna Ram For Respondent(s) : Mr.Prakash Thakuria, PP. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 21/07/2017
1. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.35/2017 was registered at Police Station Shahabad (Baran) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 332, 353 IPC & Section 3 PDPP Act.
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9578/2017]
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been made accused in this case because they were trying to arrive at a settlement with the police authorities regarding encroachment on land. It is contended that the petitioners were not involved in pelting stones at the police party.
4. It is also contended that the allegation of theft of electricity, police has made-up a story for the same.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that the petitioners have stolen the poles and for encroaching on the on the Government land and have also constructed a 'Chabutara' on Government Land and when the Government authorities went there to remove the encroachment, the petitioners attacked the police party.
6. Considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the State, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.
teekam S.No.12