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 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Mamura Khan And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 8 January, 2018

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 17713 / 2017
1. Mamura Khan S/o Mahtab Khan B/c Mev, Aged About 47 Years,
R/o Village Prithvipura, Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar,
Raj.

2. Bhagu S/o Mahtab Khan B/c Mev, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Prithvipura, Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar, Raj.
                                                        ----Petitioners
                               Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP.
                                                       ----Respondent

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. For Complainant(s): Mr. S.S. Ola _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order 08/01/2018

1. Petitioners have filed this miscellaneous bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 511/2017 was registered at Police Station Malakheda Alwar for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 308 of I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that there is cross F.I.R. in this case. The earlier F.I.R. was lodged by the petitioner party. Three persons on both the sides have sustained the injuries including injury which is dangerous to life. Petitioner No. 1 Mamura Kahn has also sustained six injuries including one injury which is dangerous to life.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-17713/2017]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Their contention is that there is specific allegation against the petitioner No. 1 of causing injury by Farsi and the same is to be recovered from the petitioner No. 1. It is also contended that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. and the matter does not warrant grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to allow the anticipatory bail application.

7. The anticipatory bail application is accordingly rejected.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

Amit/102