Disposed

Sampat and Anr. v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2018CRLMB/3251/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed petitioners to appear before trial Court to file a bail application following the police submission of a Final Report under Section 438 Cr.P.C, instead of granting anticipatory bail pending the outcome.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to appear before trial Court on or before 25.04.2018 to file a bail application; bail to be granted upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.80,000 with sureties of Rs.40,000.

Sampat and Anr. Vs State — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 3251 / 2018

¶3

I. Sampat Son of Chunna Ji, By Caste Regar, Resident of Pipaliya Kalla, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.

¶4

Shrawan Lal Son of Alpu Ram, By Caste Regar, Resident of Village Jhutha, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.

¶5

Versus

¶6

~ I<& +, /.?i, >yw' * # jif ,/.,>->;
""i 5, - :;-;' &?P
'+, "," r"s'
For Petiti'on.er(s) .." : Mr. DS Udawat 5iP4 w4TAj \a,
$ *'$, c", ,;y
For Res:ppndent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Avasthi, PP f T:,,. ,'A

¶7

The petitioners $pp,preht3f$Q',tb~eiir ,$-$est in connection with ;i*S ,>A< i FIR No.363/2013 of Raipul;: Police .St'ation, Distt. Pali, for the offences of IPC and Secti 0 n 8 2 of

¶8

Learned that in this case, after thorough investigation n -- .-,.- Rolice had submitted a Final Report 1 f .-^'- ' ) that no case is made out against the petitioners. Later on, trial court took cognizance against the petitioners and issued a bailable warrant, thereafter, trial Court issued non-.bailable warrant against the petitioners. Then, petitioners moved a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the trial Court. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that in these circumstances, no useful purpose will be served in sending the petitioner behind the bars.

¶9

Therefore, petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶10

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶12

Looking to the fact that after thorough investigatton, Police - had submitted a final report in this case, in these circumstawnces it is directed that petitioners mgyxap:pear before the trial Court on or , [/f-%$ , /, * .?+ , Z .. z-:-. fh4 -y, "q v h--'/! .! 'I i?. ,$ ,!{- @ before 25.04.2QI8rarid file a bail ap$ic2t~on;.p th,en the trial Court ?-.,..." -.--. , % - (i <-- I .- -% shall releas<khem on bail upon furnishing a pe~s.anal bond in a /" h -* sum of Rs.80,000/each with two sound and solvent sureities of Rs.40,000/-. If the petitioners will not appear on or before warrant against the

¶13

In view of Bail applicaiton under Section 438

¶14

I
?<
3- (IMANOJ KUMAR GARG),J.

Sampat and Anr. v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sampat and Anr. 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

Laxman Singh Vs State

Suresh Kumar Vs State

Smt Mangla Devi and Ors. Vs State

Jethnath Vs State

Anna Ram Vs State

Bhanu @ Sunny Sain Vs State