Allowed

Jamnalal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2016CRLMB/11584/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by Jamnalal and others who were arrested following an FIR. The High Court, without expressing an opinion on the merits, deemed it just to release them on bail by directing them to furnish a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release of petitioner(s) on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. conditioned on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

Jamnalal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

O R D E R

¶3

S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 11584/2016

¶4

(Jamnalal & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan )

¶5

DATE OF ORDER ::::: 09/09/2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶7

Mr. Deepak Asopa, for the petitioner/s.

¶8

Mr. Rishi Raj Singh, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶9

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶10

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 240/2016 was registered at P.S. Sikandara, Distt. Dausa for the offences mentioned therein against the accused petitioner. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner(s) was/were arrested. Thereafter he/she/they moved the bail application before the trial court, who vide impugned order dismissed the same. Hence this bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner(s).

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime, there is no case made out against the petitioner(s). It has also been contended that the accused petitioner(s) is/are in judicial lockup since long and the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time,hence the accused petitioner(s) should be released on bail.

¶12

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

¶13

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 petitioner(s) on bail.

¶14

Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner(s) (1) Jamnalal S/o Prabhuram, (2) Jagdish S/o Kishna @ Ramkishan, (3) Kishan @ Ramkishan S/o

¶15

Mangalram and (4) Dinesh S/o Jamnalal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with afore-mentioned FIR provided he/she/they furnish(es) 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 he/she/they shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶16

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶17

NK SHARMA

Jamnalal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamnalal and Ors. 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

Hukum Singh Vs Deepak Agarwal

R S R T C Vs Lal Chand

Banwari Lal Vs State

Gopal Lal Lakhara andORS Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Mahaveer Prasad Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Rampritam Singh andORS Vs State of Raj and Ors.