Allowed

Purkha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Jan 2024CRLMB/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail to the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The Court held that offences were triable by a Magistrate, FIR was delayed without satisfactory explanation, and incarceration was not warranted, deeming it suitable to grant bail subject to furnishing a bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail providing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the trial Judge.

Purkha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:3790]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 130/2024

¶4

Purkha Ram S/o Dalla Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Bhalisar, Tehsil Dhoriminna, Dist. Barmer. (Presently In Judicial Custody At Dist. Jail, Barmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Siddharth Karwasra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

24/01/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	197/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Dhoriminna
3.	District	Barmer
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 420, 406, 467,468 and 471 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date ofpassingof impugned order	21.12.2023

¶15

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

[2024:RJ-JD:3790]

[CRLMB-130/2024]

(2 of 2)

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶20

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. There is delay in lodging of the FIR and no satisfactory explanation has been given for the same. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶22

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶24

100-divya/-

Purkha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purkha 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

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Deen Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan