Allowed

Farid Khan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2017CRLMB/4265/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge High Court granted bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. relying on Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. due to a delay of over ten months in completing prosecution evidence in a case involving cheating and theft.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the trial court.

Farid Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail No. 4265 / 2017

¶3

Farid Khan Son of Aas Mohd. by Caste Mev, R/o Bavla, PS. Tavdu, District Nooh Mewat. (accused in Sub District Jail Kishangarhbas)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar Sr. counsel with

¶9

Mr. Gurvinder Singh

¶10

For State : Mr. S.K. Saini, Public Prosecutor

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

08/08/2017

¶14

The present Misc bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the Accused/ petitioner in the matter of FIR No. 288/2016 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 379, 382, 420, 365, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶15

Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 04.10.2016. He submits that the alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and is nonbailable, petitioner was arrested in this matter on 16.06.2016, thereafter charge-sheet was filed on 04.08.2016, charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 379, 382, 420, 365, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act and the first

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMB-4265/2017]

¶18

date for prosecution evidence was fixed for 16.09.2016, thereafter, more than ten months have been passed still prosecution evidence has not been completed, therefore, as per Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C., petitioner is entitled for bail.

¶19

He submits that though the provision is not mandatory but in this case there is no direct evidence against the present petitioner regarding the alleged cheating or theft and petitioner is in custody for more than a year, there is no criminal antecedents of the present petitioner, therefore, petitioner may be released on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. S.K. Saini opposed the bail application and submits that there is serious allegation against the present petitioner regarding cheating/ theft of Rs. 14,55,950/-, therefore this bail application may be dismissed.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made at Bar.

¶22

The allegations levelled in FIR are against unknown persons and it is alleged that unknown persons changed the ATM card of complainant- victim and thereafter he used the card of victim for purchasing certain items between 19.04.201615.05.2016 amounting to Rs. 14,55,950/-, FIR is lodged after one month, therefore without going into merit and de-merit of the case and considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, specially the fact that there is special provision for bail u/s 437 (6) Cr.P.C., I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner.

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-4265/2017]

¶25

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed.

¶26

Therefore, it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Farid Khan Son of Aas Mohd. in FIR No. 288/2016 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Alwar, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before the Trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do

¶27

so.

¶28

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.

¶29

S. Kumawat/06

Farid Khan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farid Khan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

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

Mukesh Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dinesh Kumar Meena Vs Nisthan Dewakar and Others

Vinay Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs Dinesh Kotewala

Smt Manju Bansal @Manju Lata B Vs Raghuvir Sharma andORS

Sugan Bai Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Suresh Chand Sani Vs Prabudayal and Ors.