Allowed

Durgashankar Merotha S/O Mangalchand Marotha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Sept 2023CRLMB/1007/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed four bail applications filed by accused persons in connection with FIR 282/2022. The offenses involve cheating by persons other than a company and forgery. The court allowed bail subject to furnishing a bond of Rs.25,000 and conditions to cooperate in trial and not leave the country.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail with a bond of Rs.25,000 and two sureties of like amount, subject to conditions to cooperate in trial, not leave the country, and not tamper with evidence.

Durgashankar Merotha S/O Mangalchand Marotha Vs State of… — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1007/2023

¶3

Durgashankar Merotha S/o Mangalchand Marotha, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Lajpat Nagar,gramin Police Line Ke Pass, Borkheda, Kota, Presently Residing At House No 10 Shreenath Aawas, Bundi Road Kota ( Presently Confined In Central Jail At Kota)

¶4

Giriraj Nayak S/o Babulal, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Indra Gandhi Nagar, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Kota Presently Residing At House No. B-49, Shubh Lahbh Colony, Borkheda, Kota (Raj.) ( Presently Confined In Central Jail At Kota)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10092/2023 Naim Afjal Alias Abdul Naim S/o Shri Mohammed Salim, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 212, Waqf Nagar, Dadabadi, District Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Kota)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10225/2023 Suryakant Gupta S/o Sambhudayal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Etmadpur, Police Station Etmadpur, District Agra (Uttar Pradesh), At Present Block No. 16, House No., 95, Devashish City, Police Station Borkheda, District Kota, At Present Vardhman Jain Ka Makan, Block No. 18, Devashish City, Police Station Borkheda, Kota (Raj.). (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Kota)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajsthan, Through Pp

[CRLMB-1007/2023]

(2 of 3)

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar
	Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chobisa
	Mr. K.S. Rawat for
	Mr. Braj Narain Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prashant Sharma,PP

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶24

Order

¶25

11/09/2023

¶26

Heard the parties.

¶27

These Criminal Misc. Bail Applications have been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.282/2022 registered with Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Since all these cases arise out of the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.

¶28

The petitioners are in custody since more than eight months. Investigation of the case is complete.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that three persons namely Murli Manohar Namdev, Sanjay Kumar and Hariom Suman floated a non-financial company named as Apexa Investment Private Limited. The company allegedly cheated different investors by defalcating their deposited money and not returning the benefits. The company further cheated the investors by taking their services as directors and other office bearers of the company only on condition that their invested money would be re-invested with the same company. The lead FIR is 4/2022 registered with

¶30

[CRLMB-1007/2023]

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

Police Station Gumanpura, Kota. Thereafter, different investors lodged different FIRs including the present one. It appears that some other co-accused have already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by this Court.

¶33

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail.

¶34

Considering the facts aforesaid, the instant bail applications are allowed.

¶35

It is directed that the above-named petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR if they are not wanted in any other case, provided that each of them furnishes a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below with following conditions :-

¶36

(i) the petitioners shall fully co-operate in the trial, failing which, the trial judge would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

¶37

(ii) the petitioners shall not leave the Country without permission of the Court otherwise it would amount to disobedience of the order of this Court and would be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶38

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶39

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶40

Simple Kumawat /23-25

Durgashankar Merotha S/O Mangalchand Marotha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgashankar Merotha S/O Mangalchand Marotha 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

Smt Meena Chaudhary and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Chetram Vs State

Dipti Gupta Wife of Sanjay Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Tinku S/O Chandrapal Vs State of Rajasthan

Madhu Kumari D/O Arjun Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh Son of Shri Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan