Dismissed

Haroon S/O Nijamuddin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Oct 2020CRLMB/7854/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of bail applications under Section 439 CrPC filed by petitioners accused of murder and dacoity. The High Court dismissed the plea, holding that given the offenders' histories and the seriousness of the charges, it was not just and proper to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications filed by the petitioners under Section 439 CrPC were dismissed.

Haroon S/O Nijamuddin Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7854/2020

¶3

Haroon S/o Nijamuddin, R/o Vill. Pitonja Ps Jahanganj Dist. Farukhabad (U.p.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9930/2020

¶10

Salman @ Javid @ Bhura S/o Jakir@ Jakir Husain, R/o Village Siroli Thana Siroli District Bareli (U.p.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bharatpur)

¶11

Amir@ Jamir @ Jamir S/o Pappu@ Kalim, R/o Village Subhash Nagar Sidhpura, Thana Sidhpura District Kasganj (U.p.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bharatpur)

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma (through VC) Mr. Anil Mehla (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶18

Order

¶19

23/10/2020

¶20

These bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No. 184/2019 registered at Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur

¶21

(2 of 2)

¶22

[CRLMB-7854/2020]

¶23

for the offence under Sections 392, 460 IPC (challan was filed for the offence under Section 395, 396 IPC).

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that neither the petitioners have been named in the FIR nor their identification parade has been conduced. In most of the cases alleged to have been registered against the petitioners, they were registered in one police station on the same day. No recovery has been affected from the petitioners. The petitioners are in judicial custody since long and the conclusion of trial is likely to take long time, hence they may be enlarged on bail.

¶25

Learned PP appearing for the State has opposed the same. He submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders. Against accused Haroon, 5 cases have been registered and against accused Salman, 8 cases of similar nature have been registered against them. They not only looted the deceased, but killed him, hence they should not be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the seriousness of allegations against the petitioners, I do not deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly the bail application filed by the petitioners is dismissed.

¶28

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶29

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶30

RKS/5-6

Haroon S/O Nijamuddin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haroon S/O Nijamuddin 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

Rakesh S/O Nanulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shrilal S/O Kanvarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Harkesh S/O Hajari Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Son of Bholaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Sunder Yadav S/O Shri Mangal Chand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajit Singh S/O Shri Pappu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan