Chitter S/O Motilal v. State of Rajasthan
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court rejected a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner failed to deposit the required amount under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018, leading to forfeiture of previous bail bonds. The court held that in these circumstances, bail was not in the interest of justice.
What did the court decide?
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RNASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.6. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 50/2022
Chitter S/o Motilal, aged about 70 Years, R/o Village Khatwa Tehsil Lalsot P-S. Lalsot District Dausa
(At Present lodged in District Jail, Dausa)
Versus
I. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor -$, ;"- 'k,i* .. . if-- : lU ?!ye-h 2. Brijmohan y ..S/~+,Raindhan; ?, -R/b ~i.@a,ripura Tehsil Lalsot District D-ausa ti '" C.." u3 -.q .a ,--'-.
.. ,
..>>,, ;&-?7? ? 3
,& >
For Petit ioner(s) : Mr. Ritesh Jain, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr.? Laxmaan Meena, PP
, . '1 k;GaVi$dra Singh Shekhawat for ,:s ,; ;,a,: ' - "--,>,
J r;,
in ..< iJ>L..,')i\h . rc3 mp -.-, lna /JU m~~l Y+Y 2- . . 5
,.: ~~;----<;.;~;:~~;~q>p:<;>: ,,,;y;L!,z~;% 1.
HON'BLE
05/05/2022
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted when the appellant failed to comply with an order directing the deposit of a sum under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018.
Whether the failure to deposit 25% of the fine/compensation constitutes non-compliance sufficient to deny bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Chitter S/o Motilal
- respondent
State of Rajasthan
- respondent
Brijmohan
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · May
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLMB/50/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court