Allowed

Suresh @ Surendra S/O Shokin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Sept 2024CRLMB/10842/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to petitioners charged under Sections 341, 323, and 308 IPC. The court noted the complainant admitted an amicable settlement and expressed no objection to bail, permitting release subject to bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; petitioners shall be released on bail upon arrest if they furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each along with complying with sta

Suresh @ Surendra S/O Shokin Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:39396]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10842/2024

¶4

Suresh @ Surendra S/o Shokin, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jhabarkya Loharwada, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer.

¶5

Narendra Jat S/o Shokin, R/o Jhabarkya Loharwada, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioners	:	Mr. Surendra Singh, Adv.
For Respondent	:	Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, AGA Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Hansraj Choudhary, Adv. (for the complainant)
		Mr. Heera Lal (complainant present in person)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

18/09/2024

¶14

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 against the order dated 27.08.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nasirabad, District Ajmer in connection with FIR No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 308 read with 34 of IPC by which the bail application of the accusedpetitioners under Section 482 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 has been dismissed.

[2024:RJ-JP:39396]

[CRLMB-10842/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that no case under Section 308 of IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners, as there is no injury of grievous nature caused on the body of the injured. Learned counsel also submitted that the complainant is a driver by profession, who is an employee of the accused-petitioner No.1Suresh.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners argued that both the parties have entered into compromise and have settled their dispute amicably, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶21

The complainant-Heera Lal, personally present before this Court, identified by his counsel, has admitted the fact regarding amicable settlement of dispute and also the fact that they have entered into compromise.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that the complainant has no objection if the accusedpetitioners are enlarged on bail.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that both the parties have entered into compromise, but without expressing any opinion on the

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:39396]

[CRLMB-10842/2024]

merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioners.

¶29

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., 2023 is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioners 1.Suresh @ Surendra S/o Shokin and 2.Narendra Jat S/o Shokin in connection with FIR No.168/2024, registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer, the accused-petitioners shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/along with two solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:-

¶30

(1) that the accused-petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation before a police officer as and when required;

¶31

(2) that the accused-petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and

¶32

(3) that the accused-petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶33

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶34

AARZOO ARORA /241

Suresh @ Surendra S/O Shokin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh @ Surendra S/O Shokin 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

Ramsingh S/O Magan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim Khan S/O Shri Bandu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Saini S/O Raju Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Iqbal Son of Shri Sahabdeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarabjeet Kumar S/O Samlal Vs Ncb

Jalbai @ Jallo W/O Shri Shivlal Vs State of Rajasthan