Allowed

Lalit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2024CRLMB/1038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of the petitioner, holding that since a co-accused driving the vehicle was released on bail, the petitioner sitting as a passenger should also be enlarged on bail with surety conditions.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail upon executing a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- and providing two sureties of ₹25,000/- each.

Lalit Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:9321]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1038/2024

¶4

Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Himmata Ram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Purada, Sumerpur Police Station, District Pali. (Lodged in District Jail, Sirohi)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

22/02/2024

¶13

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.143/2023 registered at Police Station Paldi M, District Sirohi for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332, 333 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Mr. Deora, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the co-accused person namely, Khumaram has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide its order dated 15.12.2023 (S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.152055/2023) and that the case of the applicant who was sitting in the vehicle is not different.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application but not in a position to dispute the aforesaid factual situation.

¶16

While granting bail to the co-accused – Khumaram, this Court in its order dated 15.12.2023 has observed thus:

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:9321]

[CRLMB-1038/2024]

“ 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was sitting in a vehicle, which was driven by Ravi Kumar. He submitted that on account of some confusion or with a view to avoid police interception, the driver of the vehicle namely, Ravi Kumar might have driven the same rashly and negligently but the present applicant, who was simply sitting in the vehicle cannot be implicated for the offence alleged in the FIR.

¶21

3. Learned counsel further submitted that story of robbery of ₹35,000/- has been concocted by the investigation, which is evident from the fact that no one has lodged FIR for robbing the amount of 35,000/- as claimed₹ by the prosecution.

¶22

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶23

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶24

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that the applicant was simply sitting in the vehicle, which was driven by the co-accused namely, Ravi Kumar, this Court is of the prima facie view that the applicant cannot be ultimately convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court is of the opinion that the applicant, who is behind bars since 16.11.2023, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.”

¶25

Following the reasons given in the case of Khumaram (supra), the present bail application is also allowed and the present applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶26

Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Himmata Ram arrested in connection with the FIR No.143/2023 registered at Police Station Paldi M, District Sirohi shall be released on bail; provided that he executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

[2024:RJ-JD:9321]

[CRLMB-1038/2024]

(3 of 3)

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶31

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

9-Arvind/-

Lalit Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Archana Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Hapoo Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jugal Kishor Bareth Vs the State of Rajasthan

Yashpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivcharan Regar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan