Allowed

Arvind v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Apr 2023CRLMB/984/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur, considered a bail application filed by three accused persons. The court disposed of the application for the first petitioner as not pressed for the present. For the remaining petitioners, the court granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., directing their release subject to executing personal bonds with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Grant of bail to Petitioners No.2 and No.3 on execution of personal bonds with sureties.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011881]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 984/2023

¶4

Arvind S/o Hiralal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kheda Samor Paliya Ps Dovada Dist. Dungarpur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Dungarpur)

¶5

Mukesh S/o Dhulji, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kheda Samor Paliya Ps Dovada Dist. Dungarpur (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Dungarpur)

¶6

Himanshu @ Raj S/o Ramlal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gothmahudi Ps Aaspur Dist. Dungapur At Present Nanaji Gangji Nanoma R/o Kheda Samor Ps Dovada Dist. Dungarpur Raj. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Dungarpur)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. R. Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order

¶13

25/04/2023

¶14

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press the present bail application for petitioner No.1Arvind with liberty to file fresh bail application after framing of charges.

¶15

With liberty aforesaid, the present bail application for petitioner No.1-Arvind is disposed of, as not pressed.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners No.2 & 3.

¶17

The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.204/2022 of Police Station Aaspur, District Dungarpur for the offence punishable under Section 304/34 of IPC and Section 3/25

[2023/RJJD/011881]

[CRLMB-984/2023]

(2 of 2)

of the Arms Act. They have preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that allegation of inflicting fire arm injury is against co-accused Arjun & Arvind. The accused-petitioners are behind the bars since long and the trial of the case will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner No.2 - Mukesh S/o Dhulji & No.3-Himanshu @ Raj S/o Ramlal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.204/2022 of Police Station Aaspur, District Dungarpur provided they execute personal bonds in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶24

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶25

6-nidhi/-

Arvind v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind 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 Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghishu Singh @ Khuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghishu Singh @ Khuman Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan