Allowed

Moolanath S/O Shri Mathra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2022CRLMB/10789/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail to two accused-applicants, one an 85-year-old senior citizen. The court quashed strict impediments to bail, citing the elderly age of one applicant and the non-grievous nature of injuries, ordering personal bonds with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Moolanath S/O Shri Mathra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10789/2022

¶3

Moolanath S/o Shri Mathra Ram, Aged About 85 Years, R/o Badnagar Police Statin Pragpura Dist. Jaipur, Presently Mandir Sakawali Nagli Ojha P.s. Tatarpur District Alwar. At Present In Central Jail, Alwar.

¶4

Sanjaynath S/o Late Shri Phoolchand Pathak, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Abibdhaba P.s. Kachhwa Dist. Mirjapur (Up) Presently Jaipur Nahargarh Road, Purani Basti, Brahm Colony, Newar Chogan Stadium, Behind Govind Ji Mandir, Jaipur At Present Abhaynath Sunar Pada Fatehgarh, Jaisalmer, Presently Sakawali Mandir Nangli Ojha. At Present In Central Jail Alwar.

¶5

----Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mehla, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

14/09/2022

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicants Moolanath S/o Shri Mathra Ram and Sanjaynath S/o Late Shri Phoolchand Pathak. The applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No.148/2022 registered at Police Station Tatarpur District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections 323, 341, 324, 336, 307 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the applicant No.1 is a feeble senior citizen who is aged about 85 years. He has submitted that applicant No.2 is the assistant/helper

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CRLMB-10789/2022]

¶17

of applicant No.1. Counsel further submits that it is an admitted case that the complainant had gone to the temple of their free will and it is not the applicants who had approached the complainant or had gone to their destination. The complainant and the applicants were under the influence of alcohol as is reflected from the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He has drawn attention of the Court to the medical report wherein the injuries qua Kuldeep were simple in nature and injuries qua Charan Singh were 3-4 days old. He has submitted that had the said injuries been grievous and dangerous to life, it would have reflected at the time of drawing of the medical report, 4 days after the incident. He has also drawn attention of the Court to the statement of Kuldeep and Charan Singh wherein it is reflected that after carrying out necessary treatment they were discharged from the hospital.

¶18

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and the fact that in the case in hand charge-sheet has been filed, statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., reflects the fact that the complainant was drunk and had gone to the destination of the applicant and applicant No.1 is a senior citizen aged 85 years and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits or de-merits of the case, this court deems it appropriate to enlarge the applicant on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicants Moolanath S/o Shri Mathra Ram and Sanjaynath S/o Late Shri Phoolchand

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-10789/2022]

¶22

Pathak shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶24

Arun/8

Moolanath S/O Shri Mathra Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moolanath S/O Shri Mathra Ram 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

Mohammad Lukman S/O Badruddin Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeewan Chodhary Son of Sugna Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Arish Son of Hasan Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjan S/O Chahat Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Soni Son of Shri Bishan Soni Vs State of Rajasthan