Allowed

Hatturam and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC8 May 2018CRLMB/5060/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Hatturam and Dharampal under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners, involved in a dispute concerning civil contracts, were directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and providing two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; conditions to appear for interrogation, not tamper with witnesses, and not leave India.

Hatturam and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 5060/2018

¶4

Hatturam S/o Ramphool B/c Mali, R/o Garh, Tehsil Sikrai, Distt. Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

Dharampal S/o Lalaram B/c Mali, R/o Garh, Tehsil Sikrai, Distt. Dausa (Raj.)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.

¶9

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Umesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.R.Singh Rathore,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

08/05/2018

¶13

Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶14

F.I.R. No.78/2018 was registered at Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa for offence under Sections 143, 323, 341, 327, 427 I.P.C.

¶15

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that complainant and petitioners were partners. As complainant wanted to give contract to someone else a civil suit was filed. It is contended that the dispute, if any, is of a civil nature. Petitioners have already appeared before the Investigating Officer in pursuance of the direction of the Court. They are not required for further interrogation.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-5060/2018]

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners, I am inclined to allow the anticipatory bail.

¶21

The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa in F.I.R. No.78/2018 , is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners they shall be released on bail, provided each of them 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:-

¶22

(I). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶23

(ii). that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and

¶24

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

Teekam/42

Hatturam and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatturam and Anr. 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

Nitin Saini Vs State of Rasjasthan

Mohammad Safiq Vs Miss Heena and Ors.

Man Singh Yadav Vs Shri Ashim Khurana Chairman S S C

Jaikam Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shekh Salim Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp