Dismissed

Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2024CRLBC/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a bail cancellation application filed by the complainant against an order granting bail. The court held that the lower court did not commit any error in granting bail based on the specific charges levelled against the accused, dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The bail cancellation application is dismissed as no case for cancellation is made out.

Hanuman Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17575]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 28/2022

¶4

Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Dharma Ram, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Jat R/o Malgaon Ps Sadar Nagaur Dist. Nagaur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.	State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.	Salman Khan S/o Nasir Khan, R/o Chuntisara PS Sadar
	Nagaur Distt. Nagaur

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.S.Bhati, P.P. with Mr. Avinash Godara
	Mr. Lal Singh Rathore for respondent No.2.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

¶11

Order

¶12

23/04/2024

¶13

This criminal misc. bail cancellation application has been filed by the applicant-complainant against the order dated 27.1.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, whereby the lower court granted bail to the accused-respondent No.2 in a case arising out of FIR No.260/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 454, 302, 392/34, 201 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant placed on record the copy of the charge sheet and submitted that the charge has been levelled against the accused-respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 302/201 IPC, whereas, the accused was granted bail while considering charge for the offence

[2024:RJ-JD:17575]

[CRLBC-28/2022]

(2 of 2)

under Section 201 IPC, therefore, the bail granted to the accusedrespondent may be cancelled.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-respondent submitted that accusation against the accused-respondent is with regard to burning of clothes and shoes of the other accused persons. Learned counsel has shown whatsApp copy of the charge levelled against the accused-respondent and submitted that according to the language of the charge levelled against the accusedrespondent, offence under Section 201 IPC only can be made out against him, which according to Schedule is a bailable offence and therefore, learned lower court did not commit any error in granting bail to the accused-respondent while considering the accusation against the accused for the offence under Section 201 IPC.

¶20

Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the overall facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the allegation levelled against the respondent-accused, this Court did not find any error in the order passed by the lower court granting bail to the accusedrespondent.

¶21

No case for cancellation of bail is made out. The bail cancellation application is, therefore, dismissed.

¶22

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT)J

¶23

94-RP/-

Hanuman Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Singh Charan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhater Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratik Porwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratik Porwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratik Porwal Vs State of Rajasthan