Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Lalit Prajapat vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27279) on 16 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27279]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6331/2025
Lalit Prajapat S/o Nand Lal Ji Prajpat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Outside Dariyapur Darwaja, Infront Of Austh Vinayak,
Ahmedabad, Gujrat
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravinder Singh Bhati, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 482 of BNSS/438 of CrPC at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 137/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Kudi Bhagtasni 3. District Jodhpur City West 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 125, 121(1), 324(4), 132 of BNS 5. Offences added, if any -
6. Date of passing of impugned 19.05.2025
order
2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned
matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:33:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27279] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6331/2025]
ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out
against his and his incarceration is not warranted. There are
no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against
grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has
been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present case is not fit for
grant of anticipatory bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record.
5. It is stated in the FIR that one vehicle, a Creta bearing
registration number GJ-01-RV-0219, was being driven in a
rash and negligent manner, which led to a tyre burst. Despite
repeated attempts by the constables namely Ashok and
Ganpat Ram to stop the vehicle, the driver failed to comply
and broke through the nakabandi. The police eventually
managed to stop the vehicle and apprehended the driver, who
is the accused in this case. Upon testing with a breath
analyzer, it was found that he was driving under the influence
of alcohol, with a reading of 27mg/100 ml.
6. This Court is of the considered view that, even if the
individual attempted to forcibly take over the vehicle and
tried to breach the nakabandi on a public road, it was not
necessary to arrest him under Section 170 of the BNSS. He
could have been apprehended under the existing case itself.
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:33:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27279] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6331/2025]
The submission made by the defence counsel appears to
carry weight, as it seems that the police constable might
have taken offence at some issue and, in an attempt to
satisfy his ego, invoked Section 170 of the BNSS and narrated
a concocted or exaggerated version of events. Otherwise,
there was no need to arrest the individual under Section 170
of BNSS on the mere anticipation of a breach of peace,
especially when the present case itself could have been
directly registered based on the incident. Furthermore,
arresting the accused first in the said case and then again in
the present matter appears to be a tactic to prolong his
custody. Lastly, there should be no difficulty in granting
anticipatory bail in the present case, as the accused had
already remained in police custody for a day or two, providing
the police an ample opportunity for interrogation, which they
have presumably carried out. Thus, arresting an individual
twice for the same alleged act is violative of his rights.
7. Thus, considering the over all facts and circumstances of the
case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 482
BNSS is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest
of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which
have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released
on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:33:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27279] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6331/2025]
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each
to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or
indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise
to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India
without previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI)
198-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 17/06/2025 at 09:33:53 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)