Allowed

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/O Sh. Sumer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2021CRLMB/11085/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons in custody. The petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 427, and 382 IPC. The court directed release on bail with a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each to the trial court.

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/O Sh. Sumer Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11085/2020

¶3

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/o Sh. Sumer, R/o Patelnagar Tan Khudiya Ps Mandrela Dist. Jhunjhunu (At Present Confiend In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15393/2020

¶10

Kuldeep S/o Jaisingh Balauda, R/o Khudiya Ps Mandrela Dist. Jhunjhunu (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu)

¶11

Ajay @ Kishore S/o Dharmpal Balauda, R/o Khudiya Ps Mandrela Dist. Jhunjhunu (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu)

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Mahala, through VC Mr. Gaurav Choudhary, through VC

¶17

For State : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶19

Judgment / Order

¶20

04/01/2021

¶21

Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section

¶22

439 Cr.P.C.

¶23

F.I.R. No.13/2020 was registered at Police Station Mandrela,

¶24

(2 of 2)

¶25

[CRLMB-11085/2020]

¶26

District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 143, 341, 323, 427, 382 I.P.C.

¶27

It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that petitioners are in custody from August, 2020. Charge-sheet has been filed. Out of the criminal antecedents pointed out, most of the cases stand disposed.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these bail applications.

¶29

I have considered the contentions.

¶30

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioners, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶31

These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶33

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶34

NIKHIL KR. YADAV/ 16-17

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/O Sh. Sumer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhupi S/O Sh. Sumer 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

Pawan Singh Rathore S/O Raghuveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyam Singh S/O Dashrath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuveer Singh S/O Mohan Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kunwar Singh@Kunwar S/O Ballo @ Balram Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Karnail Singh S/O Gurumukh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lovekush S/O Bharat Lal Vs State of Rajasthan