Allowed

Manjeet S/O Shri Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Mar 2022CRLMB/20155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerning four accused in a dacoity case was allowed. The High Court, finding no identification parade conducted despite imprisonment, deemed it just and proper to grant bail upon furnishing of personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused to be enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Manjeet S/O Shri Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶2

BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 20153/2021

¶4

Sunil Kumar Soni S/o Shri Bhagirath Prasad Soni, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. 16A, Aayuwansingh Nagar Maharani Farm Ps Shiprapath Jaipur (Presently Accused In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp >, --

¶6

'G. -2- 4'. :k-./;' $"-y <.k'. 'A >+'?, $ : 11 hS' ik*.i , (i .-? .. ! ,- +. .ri 5, :.-,-. T . .. ";li f.,..>$ \I--f " Connected With .+, .,: , ' , & , a=- -. -"i S.B. Crimei$i,?al ?.. .- Miscellaheous Bail Application ~';-'f&55/2021 . \ . +? ~anjeet,$/o Shri Suresh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o b$.'iS.agteda Tehsil K&tputli Ps Paniyala Jaipur (Presently Confined ~t central Jail Jaipur Dist. Jaipur) t.-pqq~~aw- E-~~~~~ Z. 1 L4L2L ;- ."<.& **y5q4,** fi_ _f -2,_* -%=+ .-$ _J>> $ ..- ,?. .z .-;: . . . -- ... 2 P. Pfi. -+* -=..'z<dtf3?q:? t-J .< dY::: .-.;,,[; .*<,> a,- ;, .-. .;.. &t ;, -+ ' ,, ;:. ----Petitioner d, ; &,-.,:..y 'T , . f >..J.L: :: $=I _tfi:&+..-tj.k:c._ ,.-. ,by;zw2: .~:.!&-.$! i, <z;._ **.k'$.** &\ . **_L> , , ( v2 .a .$.-%+{$ye b t:a <. 2** .,,..-'.:.,:>;$ S.",S?<J.~;, **_fi_** .-* -* >!: ,! <:::,.- **,;.:I** **_Y*_** , **-** ; . 1 _.~~;ix-$&-':'J?j;;~.~_ **>7<-T,f<b<;~~~~2{~,:;** .;,. ' State **Of** Rajastha **n, ~h~~~~,g** **w-.,..r> ., !Jy~.6..,.<:*'?$.::.:pf~~;,.-.** fi%p:$ -d-.;r;,,.$sk; / :;-;. :Ti: -TJ:2c _\3~$~-4>37;<<<.;5-$,,_ ::. !. -. 'rt%.+Ls-tj<y?** , - .-G-;!;; . ., **%y,$** **_,:>?~:"2$$;;;;'_ - ---Respondent xx-.$i>~~+., r;.ii,$;~~~j-7c; r2y&y,.fq(;;2;:~~~;,g<.;,\f~*::** :: S.B. Criminal Miscellar;ieoads;Bafl ! . **_1_** . fipplication **_I,_** -4 No. 1264/2022 T : '$ :>. h! i.; 1; / Amit Kumar Sihag S/o $/i gar$ ~~nghjged About 26 Years, R/o y/, '1 .?, .$ Ramsara Tal, Tehsil @g,$kfi;!: p%v:s$!Si:tdhmukh, Distt. Churu, 8+~~,vt+/.!;.!p j $, -i **_i,:_** ++.I.. Rajasthan Present ~~nofGP;t145~BFRafCk;Y1har Mansarover Jaipur &,f, ,., +::: y$ry:;t.!/'$>F::?$;L - .J ,, $1 . Raj, ( presently ~~~~&d 4 1 I ~~'i- **s-Efiedll;Dstrict** (..&$ ,.:.ll-:~-. 76' r,,t , jii !, Jailjaipur) =; y'$Q-~~iv !f,(:7%p?-.y!$i; : >) dct? )z+s?: +-, ,.:;;y : . -,b2jk2!: : :-& by?d $::$, IJ $1 ----Petitioner ?.G$-L& -- -.~~.&:~9il'rZ.-~la;::'.i~~~ -. -<.-, .;:, ..... :-, - **Y-.** Versus **.*>,C-.n -:~- -""., .,. r.,-n:.. ..I; .-.A 7 4 R .-;,a , ,a .> ? rc': ,<-tq** ' **_/>.>",:?-.r-_ State Of Rajasthan, hr6ug.W Pblt~'~?~s'e&tor.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

S.B. Criminal ~iscellanaous Bail ~pplicatioil No. 2337/2022

¶9

Navdeep Grewal S/o Shri Satyawan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/O Vill. Bamla Second Ps Bhiwadi Hariyana At Present 398 New police Line Hisar Ps Sadar Hisar Hariysna (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta

¶12

Mr. S.S. Solanki Mr. Santosh Chaudhary Mr. Deepak Chauhan Mr. R.S. Raghav Mr. Virendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Mahala, PP

¶13

H0N'BI-E MR. JUSTIGE ?,FAWAND ALI ,-. ,<,<.~ '.??>< -.c. < i . ;,- -5 ?,, - ri. , (%$. .> p.\ c. ;j-,; .:2 ;/ ?., ;>+--y --.. 2. :;-...:? ?, 2, * Order , ;,; .., V . t*hc,- '\ --J ". . ..:,-- 1, 28/03/202+.2'<** . " ?.: . . %,- ' .', , : 3.. . \ **_->-r. ,3 .#' . c' ..< 5 . '. **<fi~** >.:$ 1. [email protected] .kh, bail applications have been filed undeo,Section . . .< .> . 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners Sunil Kumar Soni S/o **q,zJ+i _<<p,_ **'1,** *. ?, j?> ,:, #'<; Ji Shri Bhagirath Prasad **SO~I~+'I~$** ,e+@ti~[d''.~~hri Suresh, Amit Kumar _f;":_ p , .& **':A** _q~>;;i,_ 's 7 ;.::$L,;.;;, f i) Tfi.4 &'< **Q.&\ .C ?.#>,P* , -$$$ Sihag S/o Shri Man Si.@'g,h$~rid' .-+ - ;,+,~;~i/~3r~~a;v<~ti,-4** !p+,~e:ewal **_.;.>&?_ S/o Shri Satyawan .+<2fL . - 34,* " ,&a T2. C$$ ,- ;$;15;;;$by:4$2 Singh. The petitioners ave&een\aes$&d. +. ,:3 _+t%rfi,;_ %- ?, ,, r+5:: 1k a .?. in connection with FIR ,:*.t **_,e~:~/;!$>::i_** ::,;> ., **i.-, *1!0 .P.\3k# #.,{;<(4,** ., 'kc$, ,,- **q>2Cy..:.-. -, 5 1,; ,<>. No.503/2021 registered~~~aa~$li-$&.e~~tlon Vidhyadhar Nagah 4 : , , , ,,.,,J ii '- District Jaipur North for tie dkencg(4j qbder Section 382 of IPC. 2 1 $9 J, ( , , ,;% 4 0 ' 2. Learned counsel f9r$the$.t)gti,fioii,bks submits that false cases **_8 &,<2$_ 1** a~G.--/L{i::&fL. ,q?> -< -) **rLL&f+$zT2-A2+r:+:~~?** .f ' _/$,A_ 4 .ha-:$'J \ have been I foisted aga!;l;)$t,?t':thq@t~~o~~~~1he have nothing to do **_:<?** yj, , ; ++>kx><! : d4j.,:,k<.a* @-# xi k-d 4 {IiE 1 L, with the alleged offence:+@&ul~i${~ose would be serv 'ed by .- 8 &- -&Q3- **$TJ_** keeping them behind the bars:\ 'qc"g- F<;Ag&Tpq 'a( -rrT-';' $ y$ -. 3. Per contra learned- Public ~roseiutor opposed the bail application.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the entire material available on record. It is a case of dacoity and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. As per the story of the prosecution, accused Manjeet @ Lilu S/0 Hari Singh, Vivek, Naseeb @, Ajay were the assailants who robbed the trader and looted the valuable articles. The petitioners Sunjl Kumar Soni,

¶15

Manjeet S/O Suresh, Amit Kumar Sihag and Navdeep Grewal have been made accused on the basis of recovery. However, no identification par~de has been conducted. Looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 CrmP-Ca are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners, nmed -% - :T 3 >? \ak,.' ;+;< i* y--- ,, above, shall be enlarge& on,bal provided >each of them furnishes a fF,. Y) !& .".-A ,*! - . q C1 * $5 - < <, .;,--. $=r .3 personal bond, , 'ry ;n.-.'the sum of Rs.50,000/- with,.two , , sureties of . ':. 1 --- +^.- RS.~~,OOOJT~.~~C~ =, to the satisfaction of the learned tdal.3udcje +Pi -4 for ' ;iWd .-, -. ,' . , .,.' their appearance before the court concerned on all the -dates of

¶17

(FARJAN D ALI), J

Manjeet S/O Shri Suresh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjeet S/O Shri Suresh 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

Vijay Singh S/O Shree Chakkhanlal Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohit Kumar Dangoriya S/O Mukund Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeepdan S/O Shredan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishampal @ Vijaypal S/O Khaima Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivraj Gurjar S/O Shree Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manjeet @ Lilu S/O Shri Harisingh Vs State of Rajasthan