Allowed

Bimla Devi W/O Gangaram B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2019CRLMB/12676/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants anticipatory bail to two petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court observed that the petitioners had returned Rs. 20 lacs of a disputed Rs. 40 lacs and deemed it just and proper to grant relief despite not deciding the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail on the condition of a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Bimla Devi W/O Gangaram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12676/2019

¶3

Bimla Devi W/o Gangaram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Gram Punana, Tehsil Amer, PS Harmanda, Distt. Jaipur.

¶4

----Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16036/2019

¶10

Harphool S/o Jagmal, Aged About 41 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Vill. Punana, Tehsil Amer PS Harmada Distt. Jaipur.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, P.P. For Complainant(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal Mr. Siya Ram Sharma

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶17

Order

¶18

26/11/2019

¶19

These two bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.461/2019 registered at P.S. Harmada Distt. Jaipur (West) for the offences mentioned therein against the applicants, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved separate bail applications before the court below, which were dismissed. Hence, these bail applications have been filed.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-12676/2019]

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available to me.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by this Court both the applicants are ready to return the amount of their respective shares. Learned counsel further submits that a Demand Draft bearing No.”179203” 302189001 of Rs.20 lacs has been handed over to the counsel for the complainant which he accepted. Thus, taking into consideration that the applicants have returned the amount of Rs.20 Lacs out of total amount of Rs.40 lacs to the complainant, the applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶24

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application.

¶25

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for applicants, note of the allegations levelled against the applicants as also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.

¶26

Therefore, these bail applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C are allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners Bimla Devi W/o Gangaram and Harphool S/o Jagmal in the aforesaid FIR, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMB-12676/2019]

¶29

SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station on the following

¶30

conditions:

¶31

i) That the petitioner/s shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶32

ii) That the petitioner/s 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 him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶33

iii) That the petitioner/s shall not leave India without previous permission of the court;

¶34

iv) That the petitioner/s shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.

¶35

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶36

Dheeraj /4&6

Bimla Devi W/O Gangaram B/C Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi W/O Gangaram B/C Jat 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

Deepak Rai Sharma S/O Shri U.S. Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

B P@Vinod S/O Natholi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonukumar S/O Shital Prasad B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Vyas S/O Ramavtar Vyas B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagat Singh S/O Somveer B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Paan Devi W/O Madan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan