Allowed

Mukesh Kumar v. State

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2022CRLAS/55/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed appeals via video conferencing, setting aside bail rejections. The court granted bail to three appellants arrested in connection with FIR number 2/2022 involving non-grievous injuries and allegations of illicit business rivalry.

What did the court decide?

The accused-appellants shall be释放 on bail if not wanted in any other case, provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each. The impugned order dated 12.01.202

Mukesh Kumar Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 54/2022

¶3

Mahesh Chandra S/o Sh. Ram Bahadur Ji, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Manpur, Aburoad Tehsil Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sirohi).

¶4

Roshan Sharma S/o Sh. Tarachand Ji, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Girwar, Aburoad Tehsil Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sirohi).

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Sandeep Jayalwal S/o Sh. Champak Lal, R/o Aburoad City, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 55/2022

¶11

Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Pratap Ram Ji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ankhob, P.S. Jhab, Dist. Jalore, At Present R/o Aburoad, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Sirohi).

¶12

----Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Rajasthan through PP 2. Sandeep Jayalwal S/o Sh. Champak Lal, R/o Aburoad City, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.).

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Nathu Singh Rathore through VC
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary,PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶18

Order

¶19

03/02/2022

¶20

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as per guidelines, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts,

¶21

(2 of 4) [CRLAS-54/2022]

¶22

therefore, hearing of the matter is being taken up only through video conferencing.

¶23

The instant appeals have been filed under Section 14-A SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellants, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2022, Police Station Rohida, District Sirohi, registered for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427, 285, 286, 336 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act against the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi, whereby, the bail applications preferred under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants were rejected.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellants through video conferencing and learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person. Perused the material available on record.

¶25

In compliance of Court’s earlier order dated 01.02.2022, learned Public Prosecutor submits the service report, as per that report notice has been served upon the complainant but despite service none appears on behalf of the complainant.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellants stated that a Registration Certificate has been issued in favour of the appellants on 01.11.2021 which is available at page No.21 to 25 along with relevant documents; complainant Sandeep Jaiswal is the President of Petroleum Dealers Association, Sirohi and due to some business rivalry, appellants have falsely been implicated in this case; name of the appellants’ firm is Ms. Raviraj Associates, Sirohi and bio

¶27

(3 of 4)

¶28

[CRLAS-54/2022]

¶29

diesel has been purchased through invoice which is available at page No.27 of the charge-sheet; false allegation has been levelled by complainant that appellants have been involved in the business of selling illicit bio diesel; none of the injury is found to be grievous in nature on any vital part of the body or declared as dangerous to life; appellants are behind the bars since 04.01.2022; no investigation or recovery is pending against the appellants; and trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellants prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the appellants.

¶30

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal of the accused-appellants and stated that as per rejection order, there is an allegation of committing offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 427, 285, 286, 336 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.

¶31

Thus, having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as available on record and looking to the facts that none of the injury is found to be grievous in nature on any vital part of the body or declared as dangerous to life; accusedappellants have falsely been implicated in this case; accusedappellants are behind the bars since 04.01.2022; and trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that appeals deserve to be allowed and the appellants deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLAS-54/2022]

¶33

Consequently, the instant appeals are allowed. The impugned order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sirohi, is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellants - Mahesh Chandra S/o Sh. Ram Bahadur Ji and Roshan Sharma S/o Sh. Tarachand Ji, (Appeal No.54/2022) and Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Pratap Ram Ji (Appeal No.55/2022) all arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.02/2022, Police Station Rohida, District Sirohi, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶34

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶35

129-130-Rashi/-

Mukesh Kumar v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar v. State

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

Dungar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pinta Ram @ Pintu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra @ Bhupsa Vs State of Rajasthan

Tarun Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijaypal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Chandra Vs State