Allowed

Smt. Kaushaliya W/O Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2020CRLMB/645/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Smt. Kaushaliya and Pradeep S/o Hanuman under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court dismissed Manish's application as withdrawn. Bail conditions included personal bonds, appearance for interrogation, no inducement, no leaving India, and no new offenses.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner No. 1 and 3 with bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each subject to standard conditions.

Smt. Kaushaliya W/O Hanuman Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 645/2020

¶4

Smt. Kaushaliya W/o Hanuman,

¶5

Manish S/o Hanuman,

¶6

Pradeep S/o Hanuman,

¶7

All B/c Meena R/o Vill. Chitava Ps Keshorai Patan Dist. Bundi Raj.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehrishi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agarwal, PP Mr. Ayush Gupta on behalf of Mr. Sarthak Gupta

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶14

Order

¶15

11/02/2020

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the anticipatory bail application qua applicant No.2 - Manish S/o Hanuman.

¶17

Permission as sought for is granted.

¶18

Accordingly, the misc. bail application qua applicant

¶19

No.2 – Manish S/o Hanuman is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶20

Heard on bail application qua applicant Nos.1 and 3 (Smt. Kaushaliya w/o Hanuman and Pradeep S/o Hanuman)

¶21

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.564/2019 registered at P.S. Keshorai Patan, Distt. Bundi for the offences mentioned therein

¶22

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-645/2020]

¶23

against the applicants, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved the bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material made available on record.

¶25

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that allegation against applicants – Smt. Kaushaliya and Pradeep are general in nature and no specific overt act has been attributed against them. No injury is dangerous to life. Entire family members have been falsely implicated in this case. Applicants Smt. Kaushaliya and Pradeep have no criminal antecedents.

¶26

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶27

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for applicants, note of the allegations levelled against the applicants as also looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant Nos.1 and 3 (Smt. Kaushaliya W/o Hanuman and Pradeep s/o Hanuman).

¶28

Therefore, the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner Nos.1 and 3 (Smt. Kaushaliya W/o Hanuman and Pradeep s/o Hanuman) under Section 438 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Nos.1 and 3

¶29

(Smt. Kaushaliya W/o Hanuman and Pradeep s/o

¶30

(3 of 3)

¶31

[CRLMB-645/2020]

¶32

Hanuman) in the aforesaid FIR, they shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:

¶33

i) That the petitioner No.1 and 3 shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶34

ii) That the petitioner No.1 and 3 shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him/her/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;

¶35

iii) That the petitioner No.1 and 3 shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶36

iv) That the petitioner No.1 and 3 shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.

¶37

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶38

Dheeraj /25

Smt. Kaushaliya W/O Hanuman v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaushaliya W/O Hanuman 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

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