Allowed

Aman Singh @ Amit Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Aug 2021CRLMB/6433/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur granted bail to four accused petitioners involved in a criminal case under various IPC and Arms Act provisions, directing them to execute a personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications were allowed and petitioners shall be released on bail provided they execute a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Aman Singh @ Amit Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6433/2021

¶3

Aman Singh @ Amit Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Ward No. 4, Baba Ramdev Mandir Road, Suratgarh, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged At District Jail Hanumangarh).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5817/2021 Rajendra Singh @ Kala S/o Sh. Malkiyat Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Dhani, 268, Head Ke Pas, Rohi Masaniwala, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, Dist. Sri Ganganagar. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar).

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6793/2021 Sandeep S/o Kuldeep, Aged About 24 Years, Bhakhrwala, Presently Reside At Ward No. 21, Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged At District Jail Hanumangarh).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8853/2021 Sita Ram S/o Sh. Prithvi Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Chak 10 K.w.d., District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Nohar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma Mr. Jitendra Singh Khichi Mr. Rajendra Charan Mr. Suresh Nehra

¶25

(2 of 3)

¶26

[CRLMB-6433/2021]

¶27

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, P.P.

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶29

Order

¶30

06/08/2021

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶32

The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No.146/2019 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Sections 458, 307, 195-A, 336, 148, 149, 504, 109, 120B of IPC and under Sections 3/25, 27 of Arms Act. They have preferred these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is to the effect that they had attacked the house of the complainant Jagdish @ Raju Saini at the instance of the co-accused Ram Niwas and Mahendra, so that he may not depose anything against the above referred co-accused persons in a murder case. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that now the statements of the complainant Jagdish @ Raju Saini (PW1) and his son Sunil (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court. It is also submitted that the complainant has named two persons namely Sitaram and Monu @ Inder Pal, who attacked his house, but has not named any other person. It is further submitted that PW-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that when the persons who attacked his house were running away after the incident, then he heard the names of Sitaram and Monu @ Inderpal and, therefore, he has named them in the FIR. It is

¶34

(3 of 3)

¶35

[CRLMB-6433/2021]

¶36

thus submitted that from the above, it is clear that the petitioners were not involved in the incident and the complainant has named them on asking of somebody else. It is also submitted that another witness Sunil PW-2 has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is, therefore, argued that from the evidence of the witnesses PW-1 and PW-2, it is clear that no case is made out against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case will take time.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶38

Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners Aman Singh @ Amit Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Rajendra Singh @ Kala S/o Sh. Malkiyat Singh, Sandeep S/o Kuldeep and Sita Ram S/o Sh. Prithvi Ram shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.146/2019 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶39

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶40

149-152-akash/-

Aman Singh @ Amit Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Singh @ Amit Singh 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

Raj Rani Vs Usha Kiran

Raj Rani Vs Neha

Smt. Archan Singh @ Anjana Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Tholia Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Shanti Devi Vs Parvati Devi

Rajendra Singh @ Kala Vs State of Rajasthan