Allowed

Durgalal S/O Motilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jul 2022CRLMB/1836/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. allowed by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. Court held it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner given arguments regarding false case and doubts about prosecutrix's statement.

What did the court decide?

Accused petitioner enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Durgalal S/O Motilal 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. 1836/2022

¶3

Durgalal S/o Motilal, R/o Borda Ps Sadar Jhalawar Distt. Jhalawar Raj. (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Jhalawar Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

15/07/2022

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Durgalal S/o Motilal against the order impugned passed by concerned Court below District Jhalawar for the offence(s) under Section 363 of IPC in FIR No. 219/2021 registered at Police Station Asnawar, District Jhalawar. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. It would be manifested from the bare perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix 'K' that she was not happy with her parents since they were mounting pressure upon her to marry with someone else instead of the petitioner and therefore on 07.12.2021 she left their company. She has not leveled any allegation against the petitioner. He further raises serious doubts as pointed out by the agency regarding her date of birth. After investigation, challan has been submitted. He is behind the bars since long time. No useful

¶13

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1836/2022]

¶14

purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars till disposal of the case.

¶15

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material made available on record. 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 petitioner on bail.

¶17

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.

¶18

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶19

GAURAV SHARMA /02

Durgalal S/O Motilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgalal S/O Motilal 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

Ramprasad @ Golu S/O Shri Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Son of Shri Ramuji Vs State of Rajasthan

Dayaram Son of Shri Dhanna Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prahlad Sharma S/O Shari Anandi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shoyab Kureshi S/O Raees Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikky Parashar Son of Shri Dilip Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan