Allowed

Zaheer Son of Shri Himmat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2023CRLMB/4138/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed three connected bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in dacoity cases, citing infirmities in prosecution case including belated identification and separate recovery, directing release on bail with conditions and collateral.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail furnishing bond of Rs.25,000 with two sureties and abiding by conditions of cooperation, not leaving country, and not tampering with evidence.

Zaheer Son of Shri Himmat Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:27957]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7420/2023

¶4

Aasamdeen S/o Shri Kamruddin, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bagadmev, P.S Udyog Nagar, Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Alwar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4138/2023 Zaheer Son Of Shri Himmat, Aged About 19 Years, Resident Of Village Bagad Mev, Police Station Bagad Mev, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Alwar)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7968/2023 Sachin @ Chatru S/o Jogendra @ Omprakash, R/o Dariyapur Nagar Police Station Bulandsahar, Uttar Pradesh At Present Resident Ganjha Gav, Sector No. 93, Noida, P.S. Phase-2, District Gautambudh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Accused Is Confined In Central Jail Alwar)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shamshul Aarefin
	Mr. Bheem Sain Bairwa
	Mr. Aslam S. Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

[2023:RJ-JP:27957]

[CRLMB-7420/2023]

(2 of 3)

09/10/2023

These Criminal Misc. Bail Applications have been brought under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.501/2022 registered with Police Station Udhog Nagar, District Alwar for offences under Sections 457, 395 and 397 of IPC. Since these cases arise out of the same FIR, they are decided by this common order.

¶28

Dacoity was committed by 12 persons in the house of the informant when he was sleeping alongwith his wife. The FIR discloses that name of three persons Rajeev, Mohan and Abhishek was identified, as the accused persons were calling themselves by their name. During trial the informant stated that he had identified the petitioner-Zaheer, Aasamdeen and Imran, as they are resident of the locality.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that if the informant would have identified these petitioners at the time of incident, there was no reason to not name these petitioners in the FIR. The belated exercise during trial to implicate the petitioners is motivated one for some other dispute. Petitioner-Sachin is accused for the reason that some of the looted article was allegedly recovered from his possession which was in the nature of ornament, the same was not put on the Test Identification Parade, rather, the same was of petitioner Sachin.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-7420/2023]

[2023:RJ-JP:27957]

After hearing the parties and considering the aforesaid infirmity in the prosecution case, let the petitioners be released on bail. Hence, the instant bail applications are allowed.

¶35

It is directed that the above-named petitioners be released on bail in the aforesaid FIR if they are not wanted in any other case, provided that each of them furnishes a bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned court below with following conditions :-

¶36

(i) the petitioners shall fully co-operate in the trial, failing which, the trial judge would be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

¶37

(ii) the petitioners shall not leave the Country without permission of the Court otherwise it would amount to disobedience of the order of this Court and would be a ground for cancellation of bail.

¶38

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶39

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶40

Ashish Kumar /7-9

Zaheer Son of Shri Himmat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zaheer Son of Shri Himmat 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

Urmila W/O Devi Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kailash S/O Shri Chuttan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Surajbhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar S/O Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Sunita Wife of Rajendra Katoliya (Bhatte Wale) Vs Rafiq Ahamad Son of Rahimbux

Rizwana Begum Shaikh, W/O- Mukhtar Ali Dyer, Vs State of Rajasthan