Allowed

Prashant Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Nov 2023CRLMA/470/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Farjand Ali allowed a miscellaneous application to correct clerical errors in a bail order and subsequently granted bail to the petitioner. The court noted the identical nature of the case to other co-accused whose bail was already granted.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous application to correct the order was allowed; bail granted on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Prashant Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.470/2023

¶3

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12225/2023

¶5

Prashant Gupta S/o Shri Narendra Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Purana Rebariyon Ka Bas, Jalore, Tehsil And Dist. Jalore (Raj.) (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jalore)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Narayan Lal S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, R/o Puniya Ka Tala, Barmer Presently Residing At Vatika Beer Bar And Restaurant, Taskhana, Baori, Bhinmal Road, Jalore, Tehsil And Dist. Jalore

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. S.K. Verma
		Mr.Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP
		Mr. BhupSingh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

23/11/2023

¶13

The matter comes upon an application seeking correction in the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12225/2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that due to inadvertence name of the petitioner’s counsel has been mentioned as Prashant Gupta in place of Mr. Anil Gupta and in 4^th part of para No.1 i.e. in tabular part instead of offences under Sections 452, 323, 341, 325, 326, 327 & 329 of the IPC, the offences under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act has been mentioned and in its

¶15

[CRLMA-470/2023]

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

6^th part, instead of date of passing impugned order 19.09.2023, the same has been mentioned as 08.11.2023. Likewise, in Para No.2 it has been stated that the matter relates to NDPS Act and falls under the below commercial quantity, therefore, the instant Misc. Application may be allowed and necessary correction may be done.

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the application as well as order dated 21.11.2023 passed by this Court.

¶19

From a perusal of the file, it is apparent that the prayer for correction is justified.

¶20

Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. application is allowed and it is ordered that in the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12225/2023, name of the petitioner’s counsel be read as ‘ Mr. Anil Gupta ’ in place of ‘Mr. Prashant Gupta’ and rest of the order is now be read as under:-

¶21

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶22

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	286/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kotwali,Jalore
3.	District	Jalore
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 452, 323, 341 & 34 of the IPC,
		325, 326, 327 & 329 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	Under Sections 325,326,

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CRLMA-470/2023]

¶25

			327 & 329 of the IPC
6.	Date of order	passing of	impugned 21.09.2023

¶26

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accusedpetitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶27

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The allegation of inflicting injury on the skull of the victim is upon the accused Ashutosh Vaghela. The similarly situated co-accused Akshay and Akash Singh have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.12451/2023 and 14178/2023 and the case of the present petitioner is identical to them. In view of the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶29

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CRLMA-470/2023]

¶32

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.

¶33

This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 21.11.2023.

¶34

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶35

-Mamta/-

Prashant Gupta v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Gupta 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

Sharwan Kumar @ Vakil Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaiprakash Bishnoi Vs Smt. Pallawi

Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Vs State of Rajasthan

Afzal @ Gajani Vs State of Rajasthan