Dismissed

Ratan Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2017CRLMB/13221/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. In the FIR case involving offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC, the Court noted that the charge-sheet was filed within 90 days. Despite the complaint of lateness and incompleteness, the application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected.

Ratan Singh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 13221 / 2017

¶3

Ratan Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Ghasilal Jat B/c Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No.74, Shanti Nagar, in Front of Airport, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, P.P.

¶10

For Complainant(s): Mr. N.C. Sharma for Mr. I.J. Khathuria

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶12

Order

¶13

01/12/2017

¶14

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.t

¶15

F.I.R. No. 162/2017 was registered at Police Station Sanganer Jaipur, Commissionararte Jaipur for offence under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that chargesheet was not filed within 90 days. The period expired on 02.06.2017 and charge-sheet was filed on 16.06.2017. Original file was called from the trial Court to ascertain the actual date of filing of the charge-sheet.

¶17

From the file, it is revealed that an application was filed by the Investigating Officer before the Court with a request that the charge-sheet be taken on record as the period of 90 days expires

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLMB-13221/2017]

¶20

on 02.06.2017. There is an endorsement of the Presiding Officer to the effect that charge-sheet has been received by the Officer on 02.06.2017. The Officer, thereafter, directed the Staff to submit report and the matter was posted for 16.06.2017, the date which was already given by the Presiding Officer.

¶21

It is also contended that charge-sheet was incomplete.

¶22

Counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application. Their contention is that chargesheet was filed on 02.06.2017. It was mentioned in the chargesheet that the original documents have been sent for FSL.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶23

I have considered the contentions.

¶24

From the endorsement of the Presiding Officer, it is apparent

¶25

that charge-sheet was filed on 02.06.2017, though, filed after the Court had given date of 16.06.2017. Charge-sheet having been filed on 02.06.2017. The same was filed within 90 days and hence provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is not attracted.

¶26

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor, I am not inclined to allow the bail application.

¶27

The same is accordingly rejected.

¶28

Original file of the Court below be returned forthwith.

¶29

(PANKAJ BHANDARI)J.

¶30

Amit/87

Ratan Singh Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Singh Choudhary 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

Surendra Sahu Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Prem Prakash Jonwal and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Badri Prasad Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sushila Choudhary Vs Shri Deepak Upreti and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Tibrewal and Ors. Vs Jaipur Club Ltd.

Heera Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.