Allowed

Veenu Jadawat@Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2018CRLMB/4578/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order granting bail to petitioner under Section 439 CrPC. Court noted co-accused released on bail and specific performance suit filed. Bail allowed with surety bond and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each satisfying trial court conditions.

Veenu Jadawat@Virendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 4578/2018

¶3

Veenu Jadawat @ Virendra Singh S/o Pratap Singh B/c Charan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Thikariya Charnan, Police Station Taleda, Distt. Bundi, At Present H.no. 113, New Colony, Bundi, Police Station Kotwali, Bundi (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Kota)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.R. Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni with Mr. R.M. Sharma for Complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

23/04/2018

¶12

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

¶13

F.I.R. No. 361/2015 was registered at Police Station Kunhadi, District Kota (City) for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. from the impugned order it seems that afterwards Police added Section 465 of I.P.C. and Charge-sheet has been filed only under Sections 420 and 406 read with Section 120-B.

¶14

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that agreement to sale was executed between complainant and accused No. 1.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-4578/2018]

¶17

It is contended that entire amount was paid to the accused No.1. Co-accused have been given benefit of bail by the Apex Court and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Case of the petitioner is akin to that of co-accused who have been enlarged on bail.

¶18

It is also contended that as the matter pertains to an agreement to sale and complainant has already moved the Court by filing suit for specific performance, no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. Their contention is that money was stipend by accused No.3 to the other co-accused.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner also taking note of the fact that only the presence of petitioner was shown at the time of execution of agreement to sale and co-accused have been enlarged on bail, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court and subject to the following conditions that :

¶23

(1) He shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMB-4578/2018]

¶26

and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(2) The petitioner shall not leave Bundi (Rajasthan) where he resides.

¶28

(3) He shall report to the Kunadi Police Station, Kota District, on every Monday.

¶29

(4) He shall not contact any witnesses nor make any attempt to

¶30

tamper with the evidence.

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

Amit/52

Veenu Jadawat@Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veenu Jadawat@Virendra Singh 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

Pt Bansidhar Sharma Devagya Vs State and Ors.

Smt Raj Vs Sh Mahesh Chand Maan

Dhanraj Kumhar Vs Shri Naresh Pal Gangwar and Ors.

Hansa Gurjar Vs B S E R Ajmer

Hemraj Jingoniya and Ors. Vs State Rural Develp and Panchayati Ors.

Mukesh Chand and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.