Allowed

Ijhar Khan @ Setu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2022CRLMB/2567/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed the second bail application of an accused arrested under Section 307 IPC and Arms Act. The court considered conflicting medical reports regarding injury severity and granted bail requiring a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail requiring a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

Ijhar Khan @ Setu Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.2567/2022

¶3

Ijhar Khan @ Setu S/o Iklas Khan, Aged About 26 Years, B/c Mohammedan, R/o Mama Bhanej Road, Silawatwadi, Rajnagar, Dist. Rajsamand (Raj.).

¶4

(Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Rajsamand).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Pradeep Shah, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

21/04/2022

¶13

This is the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested in connection with FIR No.167/2021, Police Station Rajnagar for the offence under Section 307 of IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now, the injured and the doctor both have been examined before the trial court. It is contended that earlier when the injured was examined, the doctor gave a report that all the three injuries are simple in nature but later on looking to the operation note, it was mentioned by the doctor that all the three injuries are dangerous to life whereas the injured was discharged from the hospital within three days. In these circumstances, since the petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.05.2021 and the trial of the case will take

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-2567/2022]

¶17

sufficient long time, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶19

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.

¶20

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without commenting on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ijhar Khan @ Setu S/o Iklas Khan shall be enlarged on bail in FIR 167/2021, Police Station Rajnagar provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.

¶22

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶23

13-NK/-

Ijhar Khan @ Setu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ijhar Khan @ Setu 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

Abdul Karim Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar @ Banti Vs State of Rajasthan

Paramjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdev Verma @ Rama Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhoga Lal Vs State

Sekh Nafis @ Firoz Vs State