Allowed

Ravi Kumar S/O Ramphal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Dec 2021CRLMB/20911/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petition, directing the release of two accused petitioners on bail furnishing security and personal bonds unless the court finds contrary.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail each to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Ravi Kumar S/O Ramphal 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. 20911/2021

¶3

Ravi Kumar S/o Ramphal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Bhaloth, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Lodge At Sub Jail Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶4

Ramphal S/o Nagarmal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Bhaloth, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Lodge At Sub Jail Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

20/12/2021

¶13

This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.56/2021 was registered at P.S. Buhana, District Jhunjhunu for the offences mentioned therein against the accused petitioners. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioners were arrested. Thereafter, they moved the bail application before the trial court, which vide impugned order dismissed the same. Hence, this bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case as

¶16

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-20911/2021]

¶17

they have nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel further submits that alleged offences are triable by First Class Magistrate. Charge-sheet has been filed. Counsel further submits that the accused petitioners are behind the bars since long. Conclusion of the trial may likely to take time. Hence, the accused petitioners be released on bail.

¶18

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

¶19

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for accused petitioners, note of the allegations levelled against the petitioners 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 release the petitioners on bail.

¶20

Therefore, this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that accused petitioners Ravi Kumar S/o Ramphal and Ramphal S/o Nagarmal shall be released on bail in connection with afore-mentioned FIR registered at concerned Police Station, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶21

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶22

CHARU/87

Ravi Kumar S/O Ramphal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar S/O Ramphal 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

Monu S/O Mansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman S/O Kana Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul S/O Shri Hajarilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajeet S/O Jogendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balaram Son of Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Tinku @ Teekam Chand S/O Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan