Allowed

Ishak @ Mendak v. State

Rajasthan HC26 Aug 2017CRLMB/7068/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two second bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. before session trial. Noting that petitioners were not named in the FIR despite complainant familiarity and a similarly situated co-accused being released on bail, the court granted bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Defendants allowed on bail, subject to furnishing one personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ishak @ Mendak Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail No. 7067 / 2017

¶3

Firoj Khan @ Shikari S/o Shri Majid Khan, By Caste Mohammedan, R/o-Raza Colony, Nimbahera, P.S. Kotwali Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged in Distt. Jail Chittorgarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail No. 7068 / 2017 Ishak @ Mendak S/o Shri Nanney Khan, By Caste Mohammedan, R/o-Indra Colony, Nimbahera, P.S. Kotwali Nimbahera, Distt. Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged in Distt. Jail Chittorgarh).

¶6

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Menaria.

¶7

For Respondent(s) : Mr.O.P.Rathi, P.P., Mr.Umrao Hussain, I.O.

¶8

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Judgment / Order

¶9

26/08/2017

¶10

These two second applications for bail have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.649/2016, P.S. Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 326, 307 I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶11

(2 of 3)

¶12

CRLMB-7067/2017] [CRLMB-7068/2017]

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the Investigating Officer. Perused the material available on record.

¶14

Shri Menaria urges that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioners, charge-sheet has been filed. He points out that even though the complainant was knowing the petitioners from before, their names were not mentioned in the written report filed at the P.S. Nimbahera on 2.12.2016 i.e. after nearly 24 hours of the incident. He urges that the name of one Wasim S/o Kalu Musalman was also taken as one of the assailants in the belated statements of the eye witnesses. The bail application of the said Wasim has been accepted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nimbahera. He thus urges that the petitioners too deserve to be released on bail.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶16

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as reflected from record and particularly keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. despite the complainant being familiar with them from before and since the similarly situated co-accused Wasim has been enlarged on bail by the trial court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners too deserve to be released on bail.

¶17

Consequently, both these second applications for bail are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners viz. Firoj Khan

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMB-7067/2017] [CRLMB-7068/2017]

¶20

@ Shikari and Ishak @ Mendak arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.649/2016, P.S. Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶21

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

¶22

/tarun goyal/

Ishak @ Mendak v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishak @ Mendak v. State

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

Badridas Suthar Vs Babulal Sharma Bank Vale and Anr.

Badridas Vs Babulal @ Bank Vale and Anr.

Rajendra Pareek Vs Mangesh

Nathu Singh Vs State and Anr.

Shyam Sunder Vs State

Roshan Ali Vs State and Anr.