High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail to accused petitioners falsely implicated in offences under IPC sections 307, 384, 120B and Arms Act despite opposition by public prosecutor.
Allowed bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JP:32771]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Petitioners
| Versus |
|---|
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. SS Mahla,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
03/11/2023
The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners against the impugned order dated 31.08.2023 passed by learned Court below for the offence under Sections 307, 384 and 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act in FIR No.228/2023 registered at Police Station Vijaynagar, District Ajmer.
[2023:RJ-JP:32771]
[CRLMB-11577/2023]
(2 of 3)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case, they have nothing to do with the alleged offences and they are behind the bars since 20.08.2023. Counsel further submits that there is no recovery from the present petitioners and no other person suffered any injuries which may be attributed to the petitioners . Counsel further submits that recovery is only from Dhirendra. Counsel also submits that investigation is complete, charge-sheet has already been filed, trial of the case is likely to take a long time to conclude and till then, their further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose, and they are ready and willing to furnish their bail bonds. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the offence is serious in nature. Counsel for the complainant also submits that an iron pipe has been recovered from Pradeep Singh. Hence, the bail application be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
Taking into consideration the submissions put forth and overall facts and circumstances of the case but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.
Therefore, the bail application is allowed. Accused-petitioners namely 1.Rahul @ Bhawani Singh S/o Gajraj Singh 2.Pradeep Singh S/o Ratan Singh and 3.Satpal Singh S/o
[2023:RJ-JP:32771]
[CRLMB-11577/2023]
(3 of 3)
Ganpat Singh shall be released on bail, if they are not required in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any other court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
CHHAYA AWASTHI /61
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the accused petitioners ought to be released on bail in a trial involving sections 307, 384, 120B of IPC.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Rahul @ Bhawani Singh
Pradeep Singh
Satpal Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
