Allowed

Budhram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jun 2019CRLMB/4712/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 100/2013. The Court allowed the bail noting that identical co-accused persons had already been released on bail and found the present case indistinguishable from theirs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Budhram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5253/2019

¶3

Karam Singh S/o Sh. Pathan Singh, Aged About 75 Years, B/c Rai Sikh , R/o 4 Gm (B) , Tehsil Gharsana , Distt. Sri Ganganagar

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4712/2019 Budhram S/o Rampratap, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Meghwal, Resident Of 4 Gm, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sriganganagar

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.D.S.Thind For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sharwan Bishnoi, P.P. assisted by Mr.Ravindra Khichi

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY CHATURVEDI (VACATION JUDGE)

¶16

Order

¶17

12/06/2019

¶18

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R. No.100/2013, Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶20

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-5253/2019]

¶21

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the coaccused Jagdish S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Santa Devi @ Shanti Devi W/o Shri Mani Ram D/o Ram Chandra, Bhaguram S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Krishna Ram S/o Shri Devaram, Ratan Agarwal S/o Shri Amar Nath, Ganesha Ram S/o Shri Ram Chandra, Madu Ram S/o Ganesha Ram, Rajendra Kumar S/o Devi Lal, Vishnu S/o Devi Lal, Sharda D/o Devi Lal, Nirmal Devi W/o Devi Lal, Seema Devi D/o Devi Lal and Bhagwati Devi D/o Devi Lal, have already been granted bail by this Court and the case of the present petitioners are not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have already been released on bail by this Court.

¶22

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but he is unable to distinguish the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis the case of the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail.

¶23

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and considering the fact that the case of the present petitioners are identical to coaccused aforesaid who have been enlarged on bail by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are also entitled for the grant of bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Karan Singh S/o Shri Pathan Singh and (2) Budhram S/o Rampratap, in connection with F.I.R. No.100/2013, Police Station Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar, the petitioners shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMB-5253/2019]

¶27

the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following

¶28

conditions :-

¶29

(i) that the petitioners shall make themself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶30

(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and

¶31

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

¶32

(ABHAY CHATURVEDI (VACATION JUDGE))

¶33

57-58-Kshama Dixit/-

Budhram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Budhram 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

Jagdish @ Pintu Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhoga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivnath Sarkar Vs State

Harpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan