Allowed

Jitendra Singh Tanwar @ Babu Son of Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2023CRLMB/1579/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two bail applications considered. The first by Jitendra Singh Tanwar dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh application. The second by Mohammad Dulare allowed without commenting on merits, directing release with personal and surety bonds and appearance at live proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each; petitioner to mark presence before IO once in three months.

Jitendra Singh Tanwar @ Babu Son of Virendra Singh Vs… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:22469]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1579/2023

¶4

Jitendra Singh Tanwar @ Babu Son Of Virendra Singh, Resident Of Dhani Doongri Wali, Tan Ganeshwar, Police Station Neemkathana Sadar, District Sikar Raj. ( At Present Confined At District Jail Sikar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9413/2023 Mohammad Dulare @ Raja S/o Mohammad Sultan @ Khalifa, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Beni Pati Ps Hariri, District Madhuvani Bihar Present Jakhod, Police Station Aasoda 17 Sector District Jhajjhar Haryana. (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Jail, Shrimadhopur Sikar)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Manish Gupta Manish Kumar
	Mr.	Bheem Sain Bairwa
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Sanjeev Mahala, PP Rajesh Goswami
	Mr.	Nikhil Sharma

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

13/09/2023

¶19

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1579/2023:-

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw this bail

¶21

application with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording of testimony of Ramswaroop Saini S/o Chhotu Ram & Rajendra Prasad S/o Hazarilal, before learned trial Court.

¶22

Consequently, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn

¶23

with the aforesaid liberty.

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JP:22469]

[CRLMB-1579/2023]

The learned trial Court is directed to record the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, preferably within a period of two months.

¶28

In S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9413/2023:-

¶29

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.493/2021 registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar for the offences under Sections 460, 392 & 302 of IPC.

¶30

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that absolutely false case has been registered against the petitioner. There is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. Learned counsel submits that this case is based on circumstantial evidence, however, no incriminating circumstantial evidence are appearing on record. The petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of the co-accused persons and the fact that his mobile location was found near the place of co-accused. He further submits that co-accused persons namely Gopal Singh & Aman have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2021 and chargesheet has been filed in this case and trial of the case will take considerable time.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application and submits that stolen articles have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and other co-accused persons.

[2023:RJ-JP:22469]

[CRLMB-1579/2023]

(3 of 3)

I have considered the contentions.

¶36

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that co-accused persons namely Gopal Singh & Aman have been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and looking to the custody period of the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶37

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Mohammad Dulare @ Raja S/o Mohammad Sultan @ Khalifa shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

However, looking to the fact that petitioner is resident of Haryana, it is made clear that petitioner shall mark his presence before the concerned Investigating Officer on first Monday, once in three months, till trial is concluded.

¶39

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶40

41-42-Nirmala

Jitendra Singh Tanwar @ Babu Son of Virendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh Tanwar @ Babu Son of Virendra Singh 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

Haseen Khan S/O Sheid Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aklesh Meena S/O Sh. Bijendra Singh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Arti Mourya Daughter of Shri Harsahai Mourya Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Maheshwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Pawan Kumar Son of Rajesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Alok Sen @ Sagar S/O Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan