Allowed

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2019CRLMB/524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the third bail application filed by the accused, noting that eighteen months had elapsed since his arrest without any witness examination, indicating a delay in trial completion.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/- and two local sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- each.

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail No. 524/2019

¶3

Rahul Grover S/o Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/c Khatri, R/o 54, Pratapgarh, Jammu, Presently Residing At 311, Priti Dey Apartment, Sainik Colony, Police Station Chhani, Himmat Distt. Jammu, Jammu Kashmir (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through PP, Raj.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman. For State(s) : Mr. Rajendra Ydav, Government Advocate with Mr. Arvind Kumar, PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Order

¶11

07/03/2019

¶12

Petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶13

F.I.R. No.27/2017 was registered at Police Station S.O.G., District Jaipur, for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B of I.P.C. and Sections 3/25, 5/25, 29 & 30 of the Arms Act.

¶14

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the second bail application was rejected by this Court on 19.02.2018. Thereafter charges were framed on 24.08.2018. Out of list of 144 witnesses, not a single witness has been examined so far. Petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2017 i.e. he has remained in custody for a period of one and half years. It is also contended

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-524/2019]

¶16

that the allegations against the petitioner is of making fake licenses. None of the licensee have been made accused so far, whereas, in fact 93 licenses have been renewed.

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on “Mehmood Mohammed Sayeed vs. State of Maharashtra 20014 (7) SRJ 336”, wherein looking to the period of custody and the fact that trial would take time, bail was granted on conditions to the accused. Yet another case in “Khemchand @ Khema vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No.861/2018)” decided by the Apex Court on 13.07.2018, bail was granted to the petitioner, as the trial was in progress and is likely to take time for completion.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor and Government Advocate appearing for the State have opposed the third bail application. Their contention is that after framing of charge, one of the coaccused filed a Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge and the record was summoned by the Sessions Judge and for that reason, statement of witnesses were not recorded. It is contended that the revision petition now stands dismissed and the matter is now listed on 13.03.2019 for recording the statement of witnesses.

¶19

6. I have considered the contentions.

¶20

In the present case in hand, there are 144 witnesses and none of the witnesses have been examined so far which goes to show that the trial would take time for completion. Petitioner in a Magistrate triable case has remained in custody for a period of eighteen months, hence, I deem it proper to allow the third bail application.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-524/2019]

¶23

This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs) and two local sureties in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees five lakhs only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of the same to the petitioner/s and an additional copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.

¶26

Chandan/9

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Grover S/O Late Shri Jagmohan Grover B/C Khatri v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Parwani S/O Late Mohan Pal Parwani Vs State of Rajasthan

Sabu @ Sahab Lal S/O Ram Niwas Meena Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mahaveer S/O Nanda Kahar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Davesh@Daveshwar @ Raj S/O Rameshchand Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Yusuf Khan S/O Shri Kamruddin B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Mona Devi W/O Bhagchand B/C Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp