Dismissed

Babu Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2016CRLBC/28/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Prashant Kumar Agarwal dismissed a bail cancellation application filed under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. holding that despite some irrelevant considerations by the lower court, the case was not fit for cancelling bail already granted, as the allegation against the applicant was less serious than against a co-accused who had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed.

Babu Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R

¶3

S.B.Criminal Misc.(Cancellation of Bail) Application No.28/2015 (Babu Lal Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶4

Date of Order ::::: 02.02.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

¶6

Mr.Anil Upman, for the complainant. Mr.N.S.Dhakad,Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.O.P.Sharma, for the accused-respondent.

¶7

The complainant-petitioner has filed this application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the order dated 31.8.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Misc.Second Bail Application No.342/2015 whereby benefit of bail has been granted to the accused-respondent under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.239/2013 registered at Police Station Bani Park, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 471 read with Section 120-B IPC. It is to be noted that the first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan vide order dated 19.8.2015 and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and co-accused for the aforesaid offences on 21.8.2015. The role found of the petitioner is that he put his signature as attesting witness on the alleged forged receipt. It is also to be noted that the application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail before High Court on 28.8.2015 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 4.9.2015.

¶8

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material made available on record.

¶9

¶10

Although, while granting benefit of bail to the accusedrespondent vide order dated 31.8.2015, learned Court below has taken into consideration some irrelevant facts and failed to consider some material and relevant facts, but in view of the fact that benefit of bail has been granted to co-accused-respondent-Shri Shravan Lal by the High Court vide order dated 8.8.2014 and allegation against the petitioner, who is witness to the alleged forged receipt, is not more serious than the coaccused, I do not find it a fit case in which bail already granted to the respondent is to be cancelled.

¶11

Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. being meritless is, hereby, dismissed.

¶12

(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J

¶13

teekam (Reserved order)

¶14

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

¶15

Teekam Khanchandani Private Secretary

Babu Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Jagdish and Anr. Vs State Urban Developmentors

Prahlad and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ved Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State Engergy Depors

Bhanwar Lal and Anr. Vs D G P andANR

Jairam Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp