Allowed

Vivek Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2021CRLMB/11290/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order decides four connected bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for petitioners lodged in custody. The sum of four lacerated wounds and abrasions sustained by the injured in connection with the offence under sections 341, 143, 323, 325, 382 & 308 of I.P.C. Trusted and released on bail.

What did the court decide?

The accused petitioners shall be released on bail provided each furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Vivek Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11710/2021

¶3

Umesh Pareek S/o Ram Narayan, aged about 24 years, R/o 7-151, Behind C.G.R. Mall, Sriganganagar.

¶4

(At present lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

Connected With

S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11290/2021

¶11

Vivek Sharma S/o Shri Hansraj, aged about 31 years, R/o Plot No. 6-U-15, Jawaharnagar, Sriganganagar.

¶12

Rohitaash Sharma S/o Shri Rajendra Kumar, aged about 21 years, R/o 3-E-Chhoti Street No. 2, Sriganganagar.

¶13

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11360/2021

¶19

Arun Kumar S/o Satpal, aged about 21 years, R/o Shivaji Nagar Second Street No. 10, Sriganganagar.

¶20

(Presently lodged at District Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11714/2021

¶26

Rohitash Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar, aged about 22 years, R/o 3 E Chhoti Galli No. 02, Sri Ganganagar

¶27

(At present lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

(2 of 4)

[CRLMB-11710/2021]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sandeep	Bhandawat with
	Mr. Shreyansh Bh Shrimali, Mr. Mr. Mohan Lal	andawat, Mr. Umesh Jitendra Ojha &
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishn Mr. Bhoop Singh complainant	oi, P.P. Choudhary for the

¶35

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶36

Order

¶37

22/09/2021

¶38

All the above mentioned bail applications shall stand decided by this common order as they arise out of the same F.I.R.

¶39

These four bail applications have been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 251/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 341, 143, 323, 325, 382 & 308 of I.P.C.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner – Rohitash Sharma in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11714/2021 submits that the petitioner has already preferred the bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11290/2021 (Vivek Sharma & anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan). Therefore, he prays that he may be permitted to withdraw the Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11714/2021.

¶42

The Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 11714/2021 is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶43

(3 of 4)

¶44

[CRLMB-11710/2021]

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that no injury has been sustained by the injured on his vital part. As per the injury report, two lacerated wounds on both the legs were sustained by the injured by blunt object. The other injuries on the person of the injured are either bruises or abrasions and are simple in nature. Learned counsel further submit that no offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. is made out. There is no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. The investigation and trial of the case will consume sufficient long time to complete. In these circumstances, they pray that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶46

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application.

¶47

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the injured Rajat has been advised surgery for the injuries caused on his legs.

¶48

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶49

Consequently, the bail applications filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. i.e. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 11710/2021, 11290/2021 and 11360/2021, are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Umesh Pareek S/o Ram Narayan, (2) Vivek Sharma S/o Hansraj, (3) Rohitaash Sharma S/o Rajendra Kumar and (4) Arun Kumar S/o Satpal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 251/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar shall be released

¶50

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-11710/2021]

¶51

on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with 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.

¶52

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J

¶53

24-27-Inder/-

Vivek Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Sharma 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

Aruna Vs State

Koshla Ram Vs State

Jalam Ram Vs State

Ratanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hans Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Vs State