Allowed

Kedar S/O Harsahay Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Feb 2020CRLMB/80/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to two petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. They were apprehending arrest in FIR No.212/2019. The court directed the respondents to release them on bail upon furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to specified conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; order directed release on bail upon arrest if personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each are furnished.

Kedar S/O Harsahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 80/2020

¶3

Kedar S/o Harsahay Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Paramanandpura @ Mandliya Thana Kotkhawada Dist. Jaipur Raj.

¶4

Omprakash S/o Laxminarayan B/c Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Pilukhera Tehsil Boli Dist. Sawai Madhopur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dushyant Singh Naruka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶11

Order

¶12

14/02/2020

¶13

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.212/2019 registered at P.S. Datwas District Tonk for the offences mentioned therein against the petitioners, 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.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complaint lodged the FIR against the petitioners after a delay of two days for which no plausible explanation has been given, the complainant lodged the aforesaid FIR with an ulterior motive was as to implicate the petitioners in a false case as the petitioners were allotted contract for fishing in District Dausa by the

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

[CRLMB-80/2020]

¶18

Government for Rajasthan and on 02.12.2019 the complainant party had stolen fishes belong to the petitioner. In counter blast the accused party lodged an FIR No. 642/2019 against the complainant party at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa that petitioners have joined the investigation and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Counsel further submits that petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

¶19

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

¶20

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner/s, note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner/s 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 petitioner/s.

¶21

Therefore, this bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioners (1) Kedar S/o Harsahay Meena and (2) Omprakash S/o Laxminarayan in the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each of them to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:

¶22

i) That the petitioner/s shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶23

ii) That the petitioner/s 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;

¶24

iii) That the petitioner/s shall not leave India

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMB-80/2020]

¶27

without prior permission of the court;

¶28

iv) That the petitioner/s shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.

¶29

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶30

TN/79

Kedar S/O Harsahay Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kedar S/O Harsahay Meena 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

Hari Singh Beniwal S/O Nokram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop S/O Ramnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Son of Janak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mitthu Singh S/O Chiranji B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Iqbal Shah S/O Shokat Shah B/C Musalmaan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramchandra S/O Ghasilal Vs State of Rajasthan