AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 353 wordsManoj Kumar Garg, J
This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 175/2020, Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu for offences under Sections 452, 323, 324, 326, 307, 379 and 34 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false averment has been made by the injured as also a false report was made by the complainant to the effect that injured received grievous injury which is dangerous to life. Counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as also learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that according to the injury report of injured, he received one injury by sharp edged weapon on his head and as per X-report, the said injury has been described to be grievous and dangerous to life; and according to the statement of injured a specific averment has been made that this injury has been caused by the present petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
It is well settled that the power exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.
In view of the above, the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.