Allowed

Aabid and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2011CRLMB/7206/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding offences under IPC, the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to petitioners Aabid and Subedar after noting the co-accused Rafiq was already on bail and the firearm was not recovered from them. Orders specify a personal bond with one surety.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted bail under Section 439 CrPC on a personal bond of Rs.40,000/- jointly with one surety.

Aabid and Another Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp. — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Cr Misc Second Bail Application No. 7206/2011

¶6

Aabid & anr Vs State of Raj through PP 2.8.2011

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶8

Mr Harendra Singh - for the petitioners

¶9

Mr Pradeep Shrimal, PP – for the State

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there exist cross cases and so far as petitioner party is concerned, they have sustained injuries of fire arm though allegations exist against the petitioners for opening fire but fire arm has not been recovered from them. Rather, it has been recovered only from Arsad and charge for offence under section 3/25 of the Arms Act has been found against him only. Fire arm has not been recovered from the petitioners and they have not been charged for the offence under the Arms Act. Looking to these facts and the fact that co-accused Rafiq was granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench against whom

¶13

¶14

similar allegations exist, petitioners may now be granted bail who will otherwise face the trial. This is more so when no case against petitioners is pending other than present one. They will maintain good conduct during the pendency of bail, if granted.

¶15

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶16

After considering the rival submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, looking to the facts of this case, I am of the view that the petitioners deserve to be enlarged on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that petitioners – Aabid and Subedar @ Subba may be released on bail under section 439 CrPC in FIR No. 179/2010 registered at Police Station- Sikari, Bharatpur for offence under Section/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC provided each of the petitioners furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶17

It is, however, made clear that if the petitioners will

¶18

¶19

involve themselves in same or similar act during period of bail then this order will come to an end without further reference to

this court.

(MN BHANDARI), J.

bnsharma

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶24

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Aabid and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aabid and Another v. State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deen Mohammad Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajesh Mohan Sharma Vs State Education Departmentors

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Pushpa and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp.

Kuvarpal Vs R P S C Ajemr

Jalaluddin Aansari Vs State of Raj and Ors.