Allowed

Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2018CRLMB/1825/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

$\textbf{HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN}$ allowed the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a counter-blast affray case, releasing him on bail with conditions and a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, provided he fulfills the court-imposed conditions regarding interrogati

Mahendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 1825 / 2018

¶3

Mahendra S/o Pritam Singh B/c Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Devi Temple, RICCO, Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bhushan Bansal

¶9

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

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Order

¶12

17/02/2018

¶13

Petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

F.I.R. No. 917/17 was registered at Police Station Bayana for offence under Sections 323, 341, 354 of I.P.C.

¶15

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that earlier F.I.R. was lodged by wife of the petitioner against the complainant party on 27.11.2017, thereafter, present F.I.R. has been lodged in counter blast. The date of incident in the present F.I.R. is 04.12.2017 and present F.I.R. has been lodged on 11.12.2017.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the anticipatory bail application.

¶17

I have considered the contentions.

¶18

Considering the arguments put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the anticipatory bail

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-1825/2018]

application.

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Bayana in F.I.R. No. 917/17 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to his satisfaction on the following conditions :-

¶23

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶24

(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶26

Amit/76

Mahendra v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra 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

Jeetu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amarsingh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

State of Rajasthan Vs Mohammed Zakir

Sammi Kha Vs Juharbi and Others

Arif Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan through P P