Allowed

Renu Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ratan Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2020CRLMB/5338/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC in an FIR relating to cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court considered the contentions and adverse antecedents opposed by the prosecution and allowed the bail application.

What did the court decide?

The bail application was allowed directing the release of the accused on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Renu Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ratan Lal Jain Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5338/2020

¶3

Renu Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ratan Lal Jain, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Plot No 5 Vinod Nagar Beawar Dist. Ajmer Raj. (At Present Petitioner Lodged In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shashi Jain present in Court For Complainant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg through V.C. For State : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP present in Court

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

20/11/2020

¶11

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

¶12

F.I.R. No. 253/2019 was registered at Police Station Sodala District Jaipur for offence under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B of I.P.C.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that there was business transactions of petitioner with the complainant. As per the agreement sale also a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- was paid to Firm M/s. Gandhar Rock.

¶14

It is also contended that the agreement took place in the year 2017. Petitioner is not the seller of the property. Learned Public Prosecutor present in Court contends that there are criminal

¶15

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5338/2020]

¶16

antecedents against the petitioner to which counsel for the petitioner replies that in all the cases Police has submitted negative final report.

¶17

It is further contended that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of ten months.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. It is contended that petitioner is the grand son of Sunder Bai Jain and the entire amount around Rs.62,00,000/- was deposited in his account by RTGS.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶21

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with 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 that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶23

AMIT KUMAR /5

Renu Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ratan Lal Jain v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ratan Lal Jain 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

Smt. Pooja Devi Saini W/O Lt. Shri Mukesh Saini B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Vaishnav @ Mama S/O Mohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Saurabh Mangal S/O Shri Babaluram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mubarik @ Mubba S/O Aasu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kabbu Beg @ Mangilal S/O Sh. Wahid Beg Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranveer Kumar Singh@Pappu Singh S/O Rajendra Prasad Singh @ Harkit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan