Allowed

Arjun v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Aug 2021CRLMB/6157/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed by Ghanshyam, Arjun, and Dinesh. The court observed that direct eyewitness allegations against the petitioners were absent and trial would take time, allowing bail on bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[CRLMB-7022/2021]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7022/2021 Ghanshyam S/o Shri Amba Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Dudtalai, Chhoti Sadri Police Station, District Pratapgarh. (Lodged In District Jail, Banswara).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6157/2021 Arjun S/o Badrilal, Aged About 35 Years, Police Thana Dhamottar, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In District Jail Banswara).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7021/2021 Dinesh S/o Shri Dayashankar, Aged About 37 Years, Village Karju, P.S. Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In District Jail Pratapgarh).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Mr. Vijay Kumar & Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶22

Order

¶23

02/08/2021

¶24

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.50/2021 registered at Police Station Sallopat, District Banswara, registered for the offences under

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMB-7022/2021]

¶27

Sections 302, 120-B of IPC & Sections 3/25, 5/25, 29 of Arms Act (qua the accused-petitioner-Ghanshyam) and Sections 302/34, 120-B of IPC & Sections 3/25, 5/25, 29 of Arms Act (qua the accused-petitioners-Dinesh and Arjun).

¶28

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

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per the FIR and the statements of Kamal and Diksha, allegation of gun shot made against the accused persons namely, Mahesh Prajapat, Sunil Dhakad and Pushkar Sharma; no such allegation is made against the accused-petitioners; charge-sheet has been filed; trial of the case will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioners.

¶30

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application and stated that accusedpetitioners accompanied other co-accused.

¶31

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the allegations made against the accusedpetitioners in the FIR and in the statements of Diksha and Kamal, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶32

Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners – (1) Ghanshyam S/o Shri Amba Lal (SBCRLMB No.7022/2021), (2) Arjun S/o Badrilal (SBCRLMB No.6157/2021) and (3) Dinesh S/o Shri Dayashankar (SBCRLMB No.7021/2021), arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.50/2021 registered at Police Station Sallopat, District Banswara, shall be

¶33

(3 of 3)

¶34

[CRLMB-7022/2021]

¶35

released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶36

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶37

10-12-Arvind/-

Arjun v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun 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

Ramawtar S/O Shri Ramswaroop Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Jitesh Arora S/O Satpal Arora Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Dayal Saini Son of Shri Geegraj Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaina Ram Godara Vs State of Rajasthan