Allowed

Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2022CRLMB/5131/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application filed by Ramswaroop fearing arrest in FIR No. 40/2022 for offences u/s 450, 341, 354, 323, 382, 506, 509, 34 IPC. Court held it a fit case and granted bail with conditions including personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail application allowed; petitioner to be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each along with specific conditions.

Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5131/2022

¶3

Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Harchand Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Jaisinghdesar Magra Ps Panchu Teh. Nokha Dist. Bikaner.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. SS Ladrecha
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Anita Gehlot, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. VK Bhadu

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶9

Order

¶10

04/05/2022

¶11

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.40/2022, Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner for the offences under Section 450, 341, 354, 323, 382, 506, 509, 34 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has specifically levelled allegation of committing rape against co-accused Radheyshyam @ Radhakishan and later on the petitioner went with the co-accused and they gave only fist blow to the prosecutrix. Counsel submits that in such circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite time. Therefore, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-5131/2022]

¶16

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶17

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Ramswaroop S/o Sh. Harchand Ram in connection with FIR No.40/2022, Police Station Panchu, District Bikaner, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/each along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following

¶19

conditions :-

¶20

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; and

¶21

(ii). 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 from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and (iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶22

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶23

60-MS/-

Ramswaroop v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramswaroop 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

Jaideep Singh @ Deep Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemant Kumar @ Laddu Vs State

Hamira Ram Vs State

Sanjay Vs State of Rajasthan

Shyamlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Verma Vs State of Rajasthan