Allowed

Manoj Singh @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2022CRLMB/6094/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed in a case concerning offences under Sections 304 read with 304/34 IPC. The court granted bail considering the totality of circumstances and the potential impact of hostile eye witnesses, directing the petitioner to execute a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

The bail application allowed; petitioner directed to execute a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Manoj Singh @ Tinku Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6094/2022

¶3

Manoj Singh @ Tinku S/o Lt. Sh. Vijay Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Bheel Basti, Chandpol, P.s. Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Dr. Sachin Acharya, SPP, CBI assisted by Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

22/09/2022

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.212/2013 of Police Station Ratanada District Jodhpur East for the offences punishable under Sections 304 read with 304/34 IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the statements of eleven eye witnesses have been recorded before the trial court and all the eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is also submitted that the police have filed charge-sheet against the petitioner mainly on the basis of the statements of those eye witnesses, however, when those eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLMB-6094/2022]

¶17

turned hostile, it would be very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner.

¶18

Learned Special Public Prosecutor (CBI) has opposed the bail application.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Manoj Singh @ Tinku S/o Lt. Sh. Vijay Singh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.212/2013 of Police Station Ratanada District Jodhpur East provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶21

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶22

Surabhii/272-

Manoj Singh @ Tinku v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh @ Tinku 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

Babu Lal Vs State

Narayan Lal Kumawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Narender Pal Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Chaila Ram Vs State

Dharma Ram @ Dharmendra @ Dharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Ram Vs State