Dismissed

Manish@Monu S/O Ramotar Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2020CRLMB/188/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petition. The court held that the petitioner, who had previously concealed his marriage to obtain a protection order against the complainant, was not a fit case for bail given the seriousness of the allegations and his dishonesty.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Manish@Monu S/O Ramotar Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs State of… — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 188/2020

¶3

Manish @ Monu S/o Ramotar Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o Vill. Brajpura Tehsil Patodi Dist.gurugram Haryana

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Majeet Kumar

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶9

Order

¶10

11/02/2020

¶11

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.12/2019 registered at P.S. Mahila Thana Bhiwadi Distt. Alwar for the offences mentioned therein against the applicant, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner moved bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he is ready and willing to return entire ‘ stridhan’.

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application.

¶14

Counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner Manish @ Monu had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-188/2020]

¶17

No.6787/2019 before this Court seeking protection from respondents Nos.6 to 13 therein and obtained order of protection vide order dated 24.10.2019 concealing the fact that the petitioner is already married with the complainant.

¶18

Looking to the seriousness of allegations in the complaint and the fact that admittedly the applicant in live-inrelation, applied for protection and on the petition the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.10.2019 passed protection order in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6787/2019. Thus, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

The criminal misc. bail application is accordingly

¶20

dismissed.

¶21

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶22

Dheeraj /24

Manish@Monu S/O Ramotar Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish@Monu S/O Ramotar Sharma B/C Brahmin 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

Naresh S/O Chunna Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Prakash Meena S/O Meethalal Meena B/C Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Lekhram S/O Shri Kadu Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kaushaliya W/O Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan

Morpal S/O Chhitar Lal B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chakrapani S/O Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan