Allowed

Bhairulal S/O Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Dec 2021CRLMB/13215/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted the withdrawal of anticipatory bail application by Bhairulal S/o Narayan. It also allowed anticipatory bail to Dayaram S/o Narayan under Section 438 Cr.P.C., releasing him on personal bond and two sureties upon arrest.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed to Dayaram S/o Narayan subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each; Bhairulal's application dismissed as withdrawn.

Bhairulal S/O Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13215/2021

¶4

Bhairulal S/o Narayan, R/o Salariya P.S. Sadar Jhalawar Dist. Jhalawar Raj.

¶5

Dayaram S/o Narayan, R/o Salariya P.S. Sadar Jhalawar Dist. Jhalawar Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pranay Raj Singh Jhala through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

08/12/2021

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the anticipatory bail application qua petitioner No.1- Bhairulal Son of Narayan.

¶15

Permission as sought for is granted.

¶16

Accordingly, the misc. bail application qua petitioner No.1- Bhairulal Son of Narayan is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

Heard on bail application qua petitioner No. 2- Dayaram Son of Narayan.

¶18

This bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.179/2020 registered at P.S. Jhalawar Sadar, Distt. Jhalawar for the offences mentioned therein against the petitioner, whereupon the investigation was commenced. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-13215/2021]

¶21

bail application before the court below, which was dismissed. Hence, this bail application has been filed.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Learned counsel submits that co-accused persons namely Sangitabai and Kalibai have been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2021. Hence, the petitioner No.2 Dayaram be enlarged on pre-arrest bail.

¶24

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

¶25

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for petitioner, note of the allegations levelled against the petitioner 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 No.2- Dayaram S/o Narayan.

¶26

Therefore, the bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C on behalf of petitioner No.2- Dayaram S/o Narayan is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner No.2-Dayaram S/o Narayan in the aforesaid FIR, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[CRLMB-13215/2021]

¶29

satisfaction of the SHO/IO of the concerned Police Station on the

¶30

following conditions:

¶31

i) That the petitioner No.2 shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation before the police officer, as and when required;

¶32

ii) That the petitioner No.2 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;

¶33

iii) That the petitioner No.2 shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶34

iv) That the petitioner No.2 shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she/they is/are accused or suspected.

¶35

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶36

Ritu/43

Bhairulal S/O Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhairulal S/O Narayan 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

Rajbahadur @ Botu Son of Sh. Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Najil Qureshi Son of Anwar Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar S/O Shri Dharampal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshchand @ Ramesh Langda S/O Ramnarayan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shiv Singh S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harisingh S/O Vijaysingh Vs State of Rajasthan