Allowed

Sahil Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023CRLMB/386/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner accused under Sections 420 and 406 IPC in an FIR regarding cheating of Rs. 12,000, finding no warrant for arrest and suitable conditions imposed. Subjective adjudication of sentence discussions.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail allowed. Personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each directed along with specific conditions.

Sahil Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:43010]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 386/2023

¶4

Sahil Khan S/o Mehboob Khan, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Adarsh Vidhya Mandir School Samas Talab Ajmeri Gate Nagaur Ps Kotwali Nagaur Dist. Nagaur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Chetan Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Narpat Singh,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

11/12/2023

¶13

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 438 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	419/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kotwali Nagaur
3.	District	Nagaur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC
5.	Offences added,if any
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	04.01.2023

¶15

Having apprehension of being arrested in the aforementioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no

[2023:RJ-JD:43010]

[CRLMB-386/2023]

(2 of 3)

factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶20

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶22

It is revealing that there is allegation of cheating Rs.12,000/from the victim. Under the direction of this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Thus, he has been interrogated. There appears no reasonable ground to direct the petitioner to first go jail and then to get bail and the offeces alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the

(3 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:43010]

[CRLMB-386/2023]

satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned

¶28

Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶29

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶30

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶31

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶32

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶33

134-Samvedana/-

Sahil Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahil Khan 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

Raju Singh @ Rajender Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari Lal Purbia Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Venktesh Sharma Vs Minakshi Sharma

Patel Prafulchandra Vs State of Rajasthan