Allowed

Avdesh S/O Shri Banwari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Sept 2023CRLMB/11070/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail application in a case involving assault under IPC. Court observed petitioner was not named in FIR but allegedly armed. Granted bail on furnishing bond and sureties with conditions to cooperate, not leave country, and not tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of like amount subject to conditions.

Avdesh S/O Shri Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:21052]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.11070/2023

¶4

Avdesh S/o Shri Banwari, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sakarwada, P.s. Todabhim, District Karauli (Presently Confined In District Jail Dausa)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

05/09/2023

¶13

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.299/2023 registered with Police Station Sadar Dausa, District Dausa, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341 and 323 of IPC.

¶14

According to FIR, lodged by son of the injured, three persons on a motorcycle and two persons from a car came out and bitterly assaulted to the father of the informant with iron rod etc. causing serious injuries.

¶15

The FIR is against unknown. During investigation, it surfaced that co-accused Bheem Singh had lodged a case against brother of the informant of commission of rape against wife of Bheem Singh and for that reason father was assaulted by the accusedperson. The injured during investigation stated that the petitioner

[CRLMB-11070/2023]

[2023:RJ-JP:21052]

(2 of 2)

was armed with Lathi .

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no reason to not disclose the name of the assailants in the FIR, if the father had identified the assailants.

¶21

Learned counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is accused in two cases under the Arms Act, which is mentioned in the impugned order and accused-person committed assault against innocent persons who had no grievance at all.

¶22

Considering the fact that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and that he was allegedly armed with Lathi at the time of incident, the instant bail application stands allowed.

¶23

It is directed that the above-named petitioner be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR if he is not wanted in any other case, provided that he 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 trial court with following conditions :-

¶24

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

¶25

(ii) the petitioner 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. (iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶26

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶27

Ashwani/-151

Avdesh S/O Shri Banwari v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avdesh S/O Shri Banwari 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

Ranglal S/O Ramlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Chand Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Chottulal S/O Bajranglal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagwat S/O Late Shri Sonpal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjida W/O Shri Mausam, D/O Shri Ibrahim B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Choturam S/O Gheesaram B/C Jaat Vs State of Rajasthan