Allowed

Dharam Singh Son of Seetaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 May 2022CRLMB/6554/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to the petitioner, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 262/2021 involving offences under the IPC and IT Act. The court accepted the argument that the case might be false and held it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner must furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Dharam Singh Son of Seetaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6554/2022

¶3

Dharam Singh Son Of Seetaram, Resident Of Karela, Post Dhamun Khurd, Police Station Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Saini, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

18/05/2022

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Dharam Singh Son Of Seetaram. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 262/2021 registered at Police Station Mantown, District Sawaimadhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 323, 341, 376, 384, 386, 450, 457, 34 & 511 IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences. A perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix ‘M’ reveals that she is a married woman aged of 27 years. At the time of commission of the offence, her husband was there. The manner in which she stated that the accused came in lurking and ravished her does not appears to be probable.

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-6554/2022]

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- 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.

¶19

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶20

SS/50

Dharam Singh Son of Seetaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh Son of Seetaram 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

Govind Agarwal S/O Moti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurav S/O Ramkalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash @ Vicky S/O Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar Prasad S/O Hariprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal @ Dholya S/O Shri Om Prakash Paridwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Narotam S/O Santlal Meghwal Vs State of Rajasthan