Allowed

Bhojraj S/O Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 May 2022CRLMB/1101/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a bail application filed by the accused in a case concerning abduction. The court found it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail considering a compromise and the likelihood of a prolonged trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner to be enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties.

Bhojraj S/O Mangi Lal 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. 1101/2022

¶3

Bhojraj S/o Mangi Lal, R/o Basodiya Ps Aklera Dist. Jhalawar Raj. At Present Confined In Central Jail Jhalawar

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shivendra Singh Rathore Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

25/05/2022

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner-BhojrajS/o Mangi Lal. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 392/2021 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar for the offence under Sections 363 IPC..

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Counsel submits that a patently false case has been foisted against the petitioner, owing to the illicit relationship but subsequently both the parties have entered into compromise. An affidavit to this effect has already been prosecutrix is also annexed with the bail application. He further incarceration is not justifiable. Therefore, Shivendra Singh Rahore, learned counsel appearing for the

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-1101/2022]

¶16

complainant does not dispute the fact of compromise. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-petitioner behind the bars till disposal of the case.

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent have vehemently has opposed the bail application.

¶18

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶20

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶21

Anu /13

Bhojraj S/O Mangi Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhojraj S/O Mangi Lal 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

Mansingh S/O Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Lal S/O Ramphool Vs State of Rajasthan

Manak Chand @ Kalulal S/O Biharilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar S/O Shri Gyaniram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh S/O Kanhaiyalal Vs State of Rajasthan