Allowed

Tushar Kothari v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2021CRLMB/9826/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants transit bail to the petitioner apprehending arrest in Maharashtra for offences under Sections 420, 34 IPC and Section 66(D) IT Act. Bail is secured via a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each for a period of four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Transit bail granted for a period of four weeks with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Tushar Kothari Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. (Transit) Bail Application No. 9826/2021

¶3

Tushar Kothari S/o Shri Dilip Kothari, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 12-B, Civil Lines, Old Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari with
	Mr. Aidan Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Bishnoi, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶10

Order

¶11

20/10/2021

¶12

Defects have been pointed out by the Registry.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that so far as defect No.1 is concerned, the present application is for transit bail, hence, the defect pointed out by the Office is not tenable and in regard defect No.2, translated copy of the FIR has been submitted by him which is available at page 10 to 17 of the bail application.

¶14

In view of the above, defects pointed out by the Registry are ignored.

¶15

This application for transit bail has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with F.I.R.No.29/2021 registered at Police Station East Syeber Mumbai (Maharastra) for the offences under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC and Section 66 (D) of the IT Act.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-9826/2021]

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that this is a dispute related to money transaction; FIR has been registered in Maharastra; petitioner is resident of Jodhpur (Rajasthan). In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgments passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Banwari Lal Kushwah Vs. State of Raj. reported in 2014(2) RLW 1849 (Raj.) and in the case of Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2005 WLC Raj UC 690 . With these submissions, learned counsel prays that a transit bail for a period of 33 days may be granted to the petitioner so that he can appear before the competent jurisdiction and seek appropriate remedy available under the law.

¶20

The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail and stated that transit bail may be granted for a limited period.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner & and also the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of transit bail to the petitioner for a period of four weeks from today under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner - Tushar Kothari S/o Shri Dilip Kothari resident of 12-B, Civil Lines, Old Residency Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) in relation to F.I.R.No.29/2021 registered at Police Station East Syeber Mumbai (Maharastra) for the alleged offences under Sections 420 and 34 of IPC and Section 66 (D) of the IT Act, he shall be released on bail for a period of four weeks from today, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) along with two sureties of

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[CRLMB-9826/2021]

¶25

₹25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. with the stipulation that during this period he will not interfere with the investigation and co-operate in the investigation and will not leave the country without prior permission of this Court as long as this order remains in force. The petitioner may approach the appropriate Court in the State of Maharashtra within the aforesaid period of four weeks. This order shall remain in force only up to 20.11.2021, thereafter, it shall stand cancelled automatically.

¶26

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶27

229-Arvind/-

Tushar Kothari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tushar Kothari v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Reenu Bhargava Vs State

Sadasukh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangi Lal Vs State

Kamla Vs State of Rajasthan

Savitri @ Samasta Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Raju Panch Devla @ Rajmal Vs State