Allowed

Mukesh Kumar S/O Vihshambhar Dayal B/C Mali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jul 2019CRLAS/1196/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal filed against the bail refusal order dated 18.05.2019. The court quashed the previous order and granted bail to the appellant while filing a personal bond with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the appellant by issuing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each with specific conditions for appearance in court.

Mukesh Kumar S/O Vihshambhar Dayal B/C Mali Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1196/2019

¶3

Mukesh Kumar S/o Vihshambhar Dayal B/c Mali, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bandha Bhitar Tan Nanuwali Bawadi Ps Khetri Dist. Jhunjhunu (Accused In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. J.R. Tantia. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ganesh Saini.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶9

Order

¶10

04/07/2019

¶11

The present criminal appeal under Section 14(A) (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed in connection with FIR No.348/2018 registered at Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 376 & 292 of IPC & Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶12

Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that the prosecutrix has travelled with the petitioner to various places at her own free will and the petitioner is behind the bars since 19.07.2018. Counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented in this matter and conclusion of trial may take long time.

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLAS-1196/2019]

¶16

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient to order the release of the appellant on bail.

¶17

The order dated 18.05.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jhunjhunu is quashed and set-aside and this appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused appellant Mukesh Kumar S/o Vihshambhar Dayal 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 with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶18

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶19

MG/06

Mukesh Kumar S/O Vihshambhar Dayal B/C Mali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar S/O Vihshambhar Dayal B/C Mali v. State of Rajasthan

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

Ramkishore S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahai B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Indra Kumar @ Indrajeet S/O Shri Panchu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramprasad@Ramu S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahai Meena B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer Sharma S/O Shri Baluram Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Saini S/O Puran Mali (Saini) Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chaju Singh S/O Shri Bal Singh B/C Rajpoot Vs State of Rajasthan