Allowed

Bharat Patidar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2024CRLMB/14805/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application, the High Court at Jodhpur allowed the request under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The offences involving cheating and forgery, although triable by a Magistrate, were deemed to have a high probability of a lengthy trial. The court granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Bharat Patidar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1777]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14805/2023

¶4

Bharat Patidar S/o Deveg Patidar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bhodigama P.s. Sabla, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan.) (Lodged In District Jail, Banswara).

¶5

Jitendra Patidar S/o Galji Patidar, Aged About 24 Years, R/ o Ghandi Chowk Pindawal, P.s. Sabla, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan). (Lodged In District Jail, Banswara).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

1. The State Of R	Versus ajasthan,Through PP
2. Kantilal S/o Banswara,raj.	Dhulji, R/o Ratdiya P.s. ---	Gadi Dist. -Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jubin Mehta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar,PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶9

11/01/2024

¶10

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

¶11

tabulated herein below:

¶12

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	12/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Cyber
3.	District	Banswara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC and 6(C)and 66(D)of the IT Act
5.	Offences added,if any	Section 120-B of the IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugne order	d 03.11.2023

¶13

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

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:1777]

[CRLMB-14805/2023]

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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 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.

¶20

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.

¶21

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶22

50-divya/-

Bharat Patidar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Patidar v. the 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

Shaitan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla Devi and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Mohammd Suhel Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Bajaj Vs State