Allowed

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2016CRLMB/11884/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court ordered the release of the accused petitioner on personal bond with sureties, finding it just and proper to grant bail without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. with a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each.

Dinesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — 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. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11884/2016

¶4

Dinesh Kumar son of Shri Babu Lal, by caste Brahmin, Resident of House No.524, Santoshi Nagar, Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota, District Kota (Raj.)

¶5

(At present in District Jail, Bundi)

¶6

...Accused petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

20.9.2016

¶11

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶12

Mr. Sandeep Pathak for Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma for the accused petitioner/s Mr. Rishi Raj Public Prosecutor for State I.O of the case appears in person

¶13

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

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR No. 136/2016 at P.S. Kapren, District Bundi . During the course of investigation the accused petitioner/s was/were arrested. Thereafter, he/ they moved bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed, hence this bail application before this Court.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident, he is in judicial lock up since long, trial of the case is likely to take long time, not habitual offender, belongs to a respectable family. Counsel has further submitted that the accused petitioner is not the

¶16

principal accused and he is only attesting witness and he does not know about the facts of the case, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is triable by Magistrate of Ist Class, hence the accused petitioner/s be released on bail.

¶17

IO of the case who is present in person has made a statement that the accused petitioner is only an attesting witness, however opposed the bail application.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

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.

¶20

Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner/s Dinesh Kumar s/o Shri Babu Lal shall be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with the aforesaid FIR, provided he/she/they furnish/es a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs) 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.

¶21

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶22

Sharma NK

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

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

Shankar Kumar Sharma Vs State Medical and Healthors

Ajju Khan Vs State Medical and Healthanr

Vinod Kumar Mali Vs State Medical and Healthanr

Suraj Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bhagwan Sahai Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp