Allowed

Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) v. State

Rajasthan HC12 Feb 2020CRLMB/1552/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the court allowed the deletion of two petitioners from the cause title. It subsequently allowed the bail application of the third petitioner, Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal, relying on the fact that his co-accused had already been granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) Vs State — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1552/2020

¶3

Sunil Singh S/o Shri Parbat Singh Rajput (Sisodiya), aged about 35 years, Resident of Badana, Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City.

¶4

Santosh Kumar S/o Chiranji Lal Mali, aged about 23 years, Resident of Ward No. 14, Shamshan Road, Near Government Dispensary, Railway Station Kota, Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, District Kota City.

¶5

Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) S/o Kalu Meghwanshi, aged about 23 years, R/o Dostpura, Near Officer Club, Civil Line, Police Station Nayapura, District Kota. (At present lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Deepak Menaria
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Sharma,P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

12/02/2020

¶13

The matter comes upon an application (Inward No. 01/2020) seeking deletion of the names of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from the cause title.

¶14

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The names of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, namely, Sunil Singh and Santosh Kumar, respectively, are ordered to be deleted from the cause title of the present bail application. The bail application now survives qua the petitioner No. 3 – Rohit @

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-1552/2020]

¶17

Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) only. The amended cause title filed is taken on record.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the bail application. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner No. 3 who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 117/2019, Police Station Paroli, District Bhilwara for the offences under Sections 332, 353 & 307/34 of I.P.C.

¶19

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

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coaccused, namely, Sarfaraj, Sunil Singh and Santosh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Orders dated 27.01.2020 and 04.02.2020, respectively. The case of the present petitioner – Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal is not distinguishable from the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. He, therefore, prays that the present petitioner may also be enlarged on bail.

¶21

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

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced and the fact that the case of the present petitioner is identical to the case of the co-accused aforesaid who have already been released on bail, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the present petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1552/2020]

¶24

Consequently, the present bail application qua petitioner No. 3 filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) S/o Kalu Meghwanshi arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 117/2019, Police Station Paroli, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) 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.

¶25

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶26

46-Inder/-

Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit @ Chunnu Meghwal (Solanki) v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanalal Vs C.B.N.

Ashok Sewag Vs State and Anr.

Krishna Vs State

Gaurav Sharma Vs State

Amar Singh Vs State

Basant Vs State