Allowed

Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/O Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jul 2021CRLMB/4778/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with offences under the Rajasthan Excise Act. The petitioner was declared not to be a witness to the alleged crime. Bail was granted subject to bonding and surrender conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail to furnish a personal bond with two sureties on conditions appearing for investigation and not leaving India.

Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/O Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi Vs… — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4778/2021

¶3

Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi, aged about 38 Years, R/o Nagpur Highway, Gali No. 03, Global Complex, Near Ruchita Hotel, Taluka Bhiwandi, Distt. Thane, Mumbai (M.H.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Choudhary, Public Prosecutor

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶9

Order

¶10

19/07/2021

¶11

This anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.52/2020-21, registered at Excise Police Station, District Jhunjhunu (Rural) for the offences under Sections 19/54 & 54-A of Rajasthan Excise Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contents of the FIR, only two persons committed the said offence namely, Hanuman Ram and Dinesh. Police arrested both of them on the spot along with offending vehicle, whereas, petitioner was not there at the time of commission of the said offence. Counsel further submits that on 04.08.2020, the petitioner had already given possession of his vehicle to Rinku Dubey @ Shesh Kumar through a contract on amount of Rs.50,000/- and on the same day also gave the possession of said vehicle to the

¶13

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4778/2021]

¶14

contractor as per the conditions mentioned in contract dated 04.08.2020 and in the said agreement, Para No.9 specifically mentioned the condition that if the said vehicle found involved in any type of illegal activity, the responsibility would fall on the contractor (who is using the said vehicle). Counsel also submits that as per rejection bail order, petitioner has criminal antecedents of one case with FIR No.302/2020 registered at P.S. Manoharpura, District Jaipur in which, the petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Shahpura, District Jaipur in anticipatory bail application No.26/2021 vide order dated 20.02.2021. It is also submitted that the bail application of co-accused Hanumanram filed under Section 439 has already been granted by the coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 27.01.2021. Hence, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶15

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

¶16

Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶17

Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi in the aforesaid FIR by the investigation officer, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with

¶18

(3 of 3)

¶19

[CRLMB-4778/2021]

¶20

two sureties in the sum of Rs 25,000/- (out of which one surety

¶21

shall be the resident of Jhunjhunu District) each to the satisfaction

¶22

of concerned SHO/IO on the following conditions:

¶23

i) That the petitioner will make himself available for the investigation as and when required by the investigation officer.

¶24

ii) That the petitioner will not leave India without permission of the Court.

¶25

iii) That the petitioner will not temper with the evidence or threaten or pressurize the witnesses in the case.

¶26

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶27

Satyendra/10

Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/O Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithilesh Kumar Dwivedi S/O Sh. Munnilal Dwivedi 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

Pappu S/O Chajuram Vs Kishan Lal S/O Fakirchand

Ramavtar Saini Vs Naresh Kumar Saini and Anr.

Atma Ram and Anr. Vs Ashok Kumar and Ors.

Tarkeshwari Chauhan W/O Shri Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh S/O Shri Sumer Singh Chauhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwan Singh S/O Sukhram Vs State of Rajasthan