Allowed

Nawal Singh S/O Chhote Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CRLMB/1526/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court criminal miscellaneous bail application allowed bail for the petitioner accused of offences under the IPC. The court held that the existence of a cross-FIR and an amicable settlement between parties justified granting bail, directing release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail was granted by enlarging the accused-petitioner on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Nawal Singh S/O Chhote Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:8516]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1526/2024

¶4

Nawal Singh S/o Chhote Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Mundayara Bhusawar, P.s. Bhusawar, Distt. - Bharatpur (Raj.) At Present Confined At Sub Jail Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Raj High Court Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ajit Kaswa Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ghan Shyam Singh Rathore, GA cum AAG
	Mr. Devendra Raj Jain

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/02/2024

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner Nawal Singh. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 299/2023 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504, 506, 379 & 307 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that accused petitioner has also suffered injuries and accused party also instituted FIR against the complainant party. He further submits that the injuries assigned to injured-Hariram is specifically attributed to accused Bablu. He also submits that the amicable settlement have been arrived at between the parties. He further

[2024:RJ-JP:8516]

[CRLMB-1526/2024]

(2 of 2)

submits that the petitioner is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the grant of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant concedes that parties have amicably settled their dispute and he has no objection, if the bail application of the petitioner is allowed.

¶20

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, looking to the fact that cross FIR has also instituted by the petitioner against the complainant party and the complainant party have amicably settled their dispute with the accusedpetitioner, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Nawal Singh S/o Chhote Lal in connection with FIR No. 299/2023 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur 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.

¶22

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶23

83-Mohit

Nawal Singh S/O Chhote Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nawal Singh S/O Chhote Lal 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

Laxmi Narayan Vs State

Smt. Mohani Bai Vs Heera Lal

Vijay Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Amraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramhans S/O Shri Giriraj Prasad Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijendra Latiyal S/O Bhuraram Latiyal Vs State of Rajasthan