Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC9 Aug 2018CRLMP/1319/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan disposed of this Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition. Finding disputed questions of facts, the Court did not quash the F.I.R. but disposed of the bail plea, directing the Investigating Officer to file a report within one week. Petitioner may raise arguments later; regular bail should be granted upon report filing if bonds are accepted.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty to raise arguments; report of investigation to be filed within one week; regular bail to be granted upon report filing upon acceptance of bonds.

Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs State of Raj and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1319/2018

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Birdichand Saini , R/o 1 E 16 Sector-7, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Kho Nagoriyan, Jaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Pp.

¶7

Narendra Kumar, S.i. Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur , R/o Dhani Jakhda Ki Sunari, Khetri, District Jhunjhunu.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kuldep Aswal, for
	Mr. Sudheer Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Narendra Singh, in person
For the State	: Mr. Prakash Thakuria, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶11

/ Order

¶12

09/08/2018

¶13

Instant petition has been preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of impugned F.I.R. No.0278/2017 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur City (East) for commission of offence punishable under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act.

¶14

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that twenty quarters of the country-made-liquor were allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Counsel has further submitted that the petitioner, as per CCTV footage, at the relevant time was present at the Dhaba and the recovery affected from the petitioner is a padding. Lastly, counsel has contended that the petitioner is a license holder.

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMP-1319/2018]

¶17

Be that as it may, the disputed questions of facts are involved in the present petition, therefore, no interference can be caused in a petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.c.

¶18

Investigating Officer, present in person, has submitted that he shall file report of investigation, along with his opinion in the concerned Court within one week.

¶19

Considering the nature of controversy and the rival submissions made herein above, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise all arguments available to him before the trial Court at appropriate stage.

¶20

Furthermore, it is ordered that upon filing of the report of investigation, along with the opinion of the Investigating Officer, the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Court and the said Court shall release the petitioner on regular bail by accepting the personal bail bonds of the petitioner and the bonds by the sureties to its satisfaction.

¶21

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J

¶22

Ashok

Mukesh Kumar Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Saini v. State of Raj and Anr.

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

Manju Choudhary D/O Late Bhagchand Chaudhary B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Poonam Nayak and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Ratiram Vashistha Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shyam Maheswari and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Brajraj Singh and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Tajendra Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp