Allowed

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Suresh Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2019CRLMB/17096/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by a petitioner suffering from severe physical disability. The court granted bail directing release upon furnishing a bond and complying with standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioner to furnish personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to conditions of interrogation, no inducement, no leaving India, and no simila

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Suresh Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin… — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17096/2019

¶3

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Suresh Kumar Sharma B/c Brahmin, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vill. Bhukaro Ka Baas Tehsil Dhod Dist. Sikar Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Akshat Chaudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ramesh Chadudhary, PP Mr.Satyam Khandelwal, for Complainant.

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶9

Order

¶10

14/12/2019

¶11

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.397/2019 registered at Police Station Sadar Sikar, District Sikar for the offences mentioned therein against the applicant, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor perused the material made available on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case due to political rivalry. Counsel submitted that the complainant is Admin of Gram Seva Sahkari Samiti Sanwaloda Dhaylaan. Applicant is suffering

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-17096/2019]

¶16

from 80% permanent physical disability and undergone renal/kidney transplant and happens to be Ex-servicemen in Indian Army and he is the husband of President of Village Seva Sahkari Samiti Sanwaloda Dhaylaan.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that on 20.9.2019, a meeting of office bearers was called on account of mismanagement done by complainant who happens to be Admin of Village Seva Sahkari Samiti Sanwaloda Dhaylaan.

¶18

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

On perusal of relevant medical certificates, it reveals that the applicant is suffering from 80% permanent physical disability and undergone renal/kidney transplant.

¶20

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for applicant/s, note of the allegations levelled against the applicant/s 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 applicant/s.

¶21

Therefore, this bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Suresh Kumar Sharma in the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he 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: i) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶22

ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-17096/2019]

¶25

indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR), J

¶29

Himanshu Soni /375/18

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Suresh Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/O Suresh Kumar Sharma B/C Brahmin 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

Mubarik S/O Shahbuden Khan B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaipal Singh Urf J.P. S/O Shree Dhan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gokali W/O Bheru B/C Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chand Sharma Son of Shri Govind Narayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt.Shaarda Devi D/O Late Preetam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Radheshyam Meena S/O Shri Kalyan Sahai Meena B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan