Allowed

Anil v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2023CRLMB/11724/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons charged with offences under IPC and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. The Court granted relief despite opposition from the Public Prosecutor, directing the accused to execute a personal bond and furnish two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:33605]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11724/2023

¶4

Anil S/o Reva Ji, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Padela Kabaddi Dara PS Pahada Dist. Udaipur At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Dungarpur Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8508/2023 Rajesh @ Raju S/o Laxman, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mahuval PS Pahada Dist. Udaipur (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Dungarpur Raj.)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶17

07/10/2023

¶18

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

¶19

tabulated herein below:

¶20

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number(s)	45/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Pahada
3.	District	Udaipur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307, 397, 427 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public PropertyAct,1984
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B. CRLMBA No.11724/2023)	08.08.2023
7.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B. CRLMBA No.8508/2023)	27.06.2023

(2 of 2)

[2023:RJ-JD:33605]

[CRLMB-11724/2023]

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶25

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

¶26

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Taking into account the nature of the allegation and the nature of the injury and trial may take long time to conclude, this Court Court deems if appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶27

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶29

119-120-Ashutosh/-

Anil v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil 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

Phool Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal Vs Vishnu

Shishram Vs State of Rajasthan