Allowed

Dimpi and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC29 Sept 2016CRLA/1054/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against the dismissal of their bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan, without expressing an opinion on the merits, deemed it just and proper to grant bail to the appellants, directing them to furnish a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Appellants released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000/- each.

Dimpi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

O R D E R

¶3

S.B. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1054/2016

¶4

Dimpi son of Nahar Singh

¶5

Krishan Gopal son of Kehari Singh

¶6

b/c Rajput Thakur R/o Namak Katara, Wasan gate, Bharatpur Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur.

¶7

(At present in Central Jail Bharatpur).

¶8

...Accused-Appellants.

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan through the P.P.

¶11

...Respondent. DATE OF ORDER ::::: 29/09/2016

¶12

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶13

Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar, for the Appellants. Mr. R.S. Sekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶14

Mr. Dheeraj Singhal, for the complainant.

¶15

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶16

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 456/2016 was registered at P.S. Kotwali Bharatpur, Distt. Bharatpur for the offences mentioned therein against the accused appellants. During the course of investigation, the accused appellants were arrested. Thereafter he moved the bail application before the trial court, who vide impugned order dismissed the same. Hence this appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Rule 315 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case. The complainant party was aggressor and they quarreled with the appellant, for which an FIR No. 457/2016 was registered from the appellants' side at P.S. Kotwali, Distt. Bharatpur against the

¶18

complainant party of this case. They have nothing to do with the alleged crime, there is no case made out against the appellants. It has also been contended that the accused appellants are in judicial lockup since long and the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the accused appellants should be released on bail.

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor for the State have opposed the appeal.

¶20

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to release the appellants on bail.

¶21

Therefore, this appeal is allowed and it is directed that accused appellants (1) Dimpi S/o Nahar Singh and (2) Krishan Gopal S/o Kehari Singh shall be released on bail in connection with afore-mentioned FIR provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lac) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶23

Sandeep/Manisha/-224

Dimpi and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dimpi and Anr. 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

State and Another Vs Vimla and Another

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Islam Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

R S R T C Vs Santra Devi and Ors.

Vandita Chaudhary Vs State Medical Education andORS

Jhabarmal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp