Allowed

Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar v. State

Rajasthan HC7 Jun 2019CRLMB/6657/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vacation Judge allowed bail for the petitioner charged under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court held the offence is prima facie bailable and rejected arguments that pending non-bailable trials preclude bail, noting no allegation of arms use. Petitioner released on bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail to execute personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6657/2019

¶3

Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar S/o Sh. Shyam Lal, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Saini, R/o Near Chatri Talai Pani Ki Tanki, Nimbaheda, P.s. Kotwali Nimbaheda, Distt. Chittorgarh (At Present Lodged In Distt. Jail, Chittorgarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

(VACATION JUDGE) Order

¶11

07/06/2019

¶12

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.251/2019, Police Station Kotwali, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh, for the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶13

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

¶14

Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence alleged against the petitioner is Section 3/25 of Arms Act, 1959, which is bailable offence as held by this Court in the case of Ramvilas @ Billu Vs. State of Rajasthan, decided on 02.09.2009. However, as there is a contrary view also taken by this Court, the police treats the offence under Section 3/25 of Arms Act to be non-bailable.

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-6657/2019]

¶17

Learned counsel further submits that the court below has

¶18

rejected the petitioner’s bail application vide impugned order, notwithstanding the fact that the co-accused has been enlarged on bail by the same court on 30.05.2019.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail application.

¶20

Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds that while rejecting the petitioner’s bail, the court below has observed that there are three cases under Section 323 IPC, which in opinion of this Court cannot be a bar for grant of bail, particularly when there was no allegation of use of arms.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the offence is prima facie bailable and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶22

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Shyam Lal arrested in FIR No.251/2019, Police Station Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(DINESH MEHTA),VJ

¶24

180-skm/-

¶25

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-6657/2019]

Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chintu @ Chandra Shekhar v. State

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

Permesh Vs State

Kishore Singhvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sona Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State

Aftab @ Apu Vs State

Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan