Allowed

Sangram v. State

Rajasthan HC19 Sept 2022CRLMB/1855/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Garg allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., apprehending arrest in cases involving offences under Sections 147, 148, 394, 436, and 188 IPC. The court ordered a personal bond of Rs. 1 lakh with two sureties on specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted via personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Sangram Vs State — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1855/2022

¶3

Sangram S/o Amritlal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Palvada Police Station Sadar Dungarpur Tehsil And District Dungarpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Abhishek Mehta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mukesh Trivedi, PP
	Mr.Dinesh Kumar, Head Constable,
	P.S. Sadar Dungarpur.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶10

Order

¶11

19/09/2022

¶12

This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.213/2020, Police Station Sadar Dungarpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 394, 436, 188 of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific averment has been made against the present petitioner and there is only omnibus allegation against him. It is further contended that in another FIR, the petitioner has been arrested and granted regular bail. No useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner behind the bar for an indefinite period. Therefore, it is prayed that the benefit of pre-arrest bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶15

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-1855/2022]

¶16

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for

¶17

both the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶18

Looking to all the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merit of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application under Sec. 438, Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of accusedpetitioner Sangram S/o Amritlal in connection with FIR No.213/2020, Police Station Sadar Dungarpur, he shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer on the following conditions:-

¶20

That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶21

That the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the court of to any police officer.

¶22

That the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶23

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶24

169-NK/-

Sangram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram 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

Kalu @ Shahrukh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Vs State of Rajasthan

Masra Ram Vs State

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan