Allowed

Premchand @ Chain Singh @ Chenya S/O Shri Radheshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2020CRLAS/1198/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an S.B. Criminal Appeal against the rejection of a bail application. The appellant, accused under Sections 458, 323, 143, and 365 of the IPC, contended non-naming in FIR and POCSO. The court set aside the impugned order and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.07.2020 is set aside. Appellant directed to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Premchand @ Chain Singh @ Chenya S/O Shri… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1198/2020

¶3

Premchand @ Chain Singh @ Chenya S/o Shri Radheshyam, Age 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 1 Mukundgarh Police Station Mukundgarh Distt. Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶4

(At Present In Distt. Jail Sikar)

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

Acchi Devi W/o Late Shri Shersingh, Age About 55 Years, R/o Nayabas Police Station Kotwali Neemkathana Distt. Sikar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K.K. Bhinda through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP Mr. Vikram Singh through V.C.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶12

Order

¶13

14/12/2020

¶14

The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 27.07.2020 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sikar whereby bail application filed by the appellant was rejected.

¶15

F.I.R. No 126/2020 was registered at Police Station Kotwali Neem Ka Thana District Sikar for offence under Sections 458, 323,143, and 365 of IPC.

¶16

It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that appellant is not named in the FIR and in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the complainant.

¶17

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1198/2020]

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the appeal. It is contended that one of the witnesses had named the appellant.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

¶21

The order dated 27.07.2020 is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty thousand 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.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶23

ashu /83

Premchand @ Chain Singh @ Chenya S/O Shri Radheshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premchand @ Chain Singh @ Chenya S/O Shri Radheshyam 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

Rawat Singh S/O Kan Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan

Ishwarsingh S/O Narayansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Kumar Mahavar S/O Shri Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Thehath@Rajendra@Richhapal S/O Shri Dhannaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramgyan Son of Shri Amar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajesh S/O Shri Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan