Allowed

Ram Swaroop v. State

Rajasthan HC10 Aug 2020CRLMB/8252/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail applications filed by Ram Swaroop and Rajaram, who were in judicial custody for offences including assault and burglary. The court observed that injuries were simple, no further investigation was pending, and the trial would take time.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Ram Swaroop Vs State — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8252/2020

¶4

Ram Swaroop S/o Late Shri Laxman Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Tejrasar, Tehsil And District Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7341/2020

¶11

Rajaram S/o Sh. Devaram, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Tejrasar, P.s. Napasar, Dist. Bikaner. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Rajasthan PP.

¶15

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hari Shanker Shrimali (in CRLMB No. 8252/2020). Mr. Rajesh Panwar (in CRLMB No. 7341/2020)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi,PP.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶17

Order

¶18

10/08/2020

¶19

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 58/2020, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner, registered for the offences under Sections 458, 354-B, 323, 382, 143 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-8252/2020]

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the parties are close relatives of each other; that the present accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case; that the false allegations have been levelled against the accused-petitioner in the First Information Report (FIR); that no further investigation or recovery is pending from the present accused-petitioners; and that the trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the bail application of the accused-petitioner, stated that five other cases are pending against the accused-petitioner – Ram Swaroop and out of them, two cases are registered for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶24

In the bail application (No. 7341/2020) filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner Rajaram, learned counsel Mr. Rajesh Panwar stated that on the last date of hearing, i.e., 27.07.2020, the matter was adjourned for today, but by typing error, the date was mentioned as “16.08.2020” which is holiday of Sunday. Therefore, learned counsel stated that in the circumstances, one application seeking preponement of the date/early hearing has also been filed. Learned counsel prayed that the matter may be heard.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecution has no objection, if the abovementioned application is allowed.

¶26

Accordingly and in view of the above, the application, seeking preponement of the date, is allowed; and the matter has been heard today itself.

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMB-8252/2020]

¶29

Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶30

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the facts that the injuries are simple in nature; that no further investigation or recovery is pending against the accused-petitioners; and that the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶31

Consequently, both the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Ram Swaroop S/o Late Laxman Ram (Bail Application No. 8252/2020) and Rajaram S/o Devaram (Bail Application No. 7341/2020), both arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 58/2020, Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶33

83-84-Mohan/-

Ram Swaroop v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Swaroop v. State

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

Durgesh Kumar Vs State

Om Prakash Vs UOI

Raju @ Raju Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramswaroop @ Radheyshyam Vs State

Gurdas Singh Vs State of Rajasthan