Allowed

Jitendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2023CRLMB/3226/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur granted bail to Jitendra and Devi Lal under Section 115 IPC, waiving the prior hearing procedure because the case involves public prosecution due to dishonoured cheques and they have been in judicial custody since January 1, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Bail was granted to the applicants under Section 115 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/008431]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No. 3226/2023

¶4

Jitendra S/o Dhool Chand, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Patel, R/o Jhadole, PS Sarada Dist. Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

¶5

Devi Lal S/o Dhool Chand, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Patel, R/o Jhadole, PS Sarada Dist. Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur).

¶6

----Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Applicants(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Bishnoi, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶12

Order

¶13

04/04/2023

¶14

izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k ftrsUnz o nsohyky dh vksj ls tekur dk ;g f}rh; vkosnu i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 n.M izfØ;k lafgrk iqfyl Fkkuk ljkMk] ftyk mn;iqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 0242@2022] vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 336] 506] 427] 302@115] 34 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds ekeys esa izLrqr gqvk gSA

¶15

geus cgl tekur vkosnu lquh rFkk miyC/k vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA

¶16

izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh vksj ls ;g rdZ fn;k x;k fd bl ekeys esa vkjksi&i= izLrqr gks pqdk gSA iwoZ esa fnukad 30-01-2023 dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi&i= is'k gksus ds i'pkr~ u;k vkosnu is'k djus dh Lora=rk ds lkFk izkFkZuk&i= [kkfjt fd;k x;k FkkA bl ekeys esa i;kZIr lk{; iqfyl }kjk ,df=r ugha dh xbZ gSA izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dks >wBk Qalk;k x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dkQh le; ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgs gSaA vr% bl vk/kkj ij izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dks tekur ij fjgk fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

[2023/RJJD/008431]

[CRLMB-3226/2023]

(2 of 2)

blds foijhr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us mDr tekur vkosnu i= dk l[r fojks/k djrs gq, izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur vkosnu i= dks [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶21

eSaus mi;qZDr rdkZsa ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl ekeys esa vkjksi&i= izLrqr gks pqdk gS vkSj eq[; :i ls /kkjk 115 Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk ds First Clause ds rgr ;g ekeyk gksuk izdV gksrk gSA iwoZ esa ifjoknh dks tku ls ekjus dh /kedh nsus] rRi'pkr~ ifjoknh dh nqdku ij iFkjko djus dk vkjksi ifjoknh dh vksj ls yxk;k x;k gS vkSj nqdku ij ,d fyf[kr i= tku ls ekjus dh /kedh ckcr~ j[ks tkus dk crk;k x;k gSA iwoZ esa dksbZ izdj.k izkFkhZx.k ds fo:) ntZ gksuk ugha ik;k x;k gSA izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k fnukad 01-01-2023 ls iqfyl@U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgs gSaA

¶22

vr% ,slh voLFkk esa cgl esa mBk;s x;s fcUnqvksa ,oa vfHkys[k ij miyC/k lkexzh dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk] izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks en~nsutj j[krs gq, izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr izrhr gksrk gSA

¶23

ifj.kker% izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k dk f}rh; tekur vkosnu i= Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd izR;sd izkFkhZx.k&vfHk;qDrx.k 01- ftrsUnz iq= /kwypan iVsy] 02- nsohyky iq= /kwypan ] iqfyl Fkkuk ljkM+k] ftyk mn;iqj esa ntZ izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 0242@2022 ds ekeys esa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa viuh&viuh fu;fer mifLFkfr ds laca/k esa ,d yk[k :i;s dk eqpydk ,oa ;ksX; v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds larks’kizn ipkl&ipkl gtkj :i;s dh nks tekurs izLrqr dj rLnhd djk ns rks mUgsa bl izdj.k esa tekur ij rqjar fjgk dj fn;k tkosA

¶24

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J

¶25

142-GauravG/-

Jitendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra 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

Tarachand and Ors. Vs Rajendra Kumar

N.I.Co Ltd. Vs Sushila Devi and Ors.

National Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Harlal and Ors.

Nar Singh Ram Vs Kewal Ram and Anr.

Durgesh Vs Mohanlal and Ors.

Urmila Kunwar Vs Narpat Singh