Allowed

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMB/1555/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to three petitioners facing an FIR alleging cheating, criminal conspiracy, and unfair means in examinations. The court allowed bail citing the pendency of the case, the absence of custodial interrogation necessity, and a coordinate bench granting similar relief to a similarly situated co-accused.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, conditioned against inducing witnesses and leaving India.

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6839]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1555/2024

¶4

Dinesh Dhaka S/o Kishnaram Dhaka, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhaka Ki Dhani, Pur, District Jalore, 343041, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1571/2024

¶11

Shree Ram Godara S/o Jagdish Ram Godara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kahalaniyo Ki Dhani, Jhotada, Sivada, Police Station Chitalwana, Jalore, 343041, Rajasthan.

¶12

Sunil Kumar S/o Dheema Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Post Veerawa, Police Station Chitalwana, Jalore, 343041, Rajasthan.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. Assisted by Veerendra Singh
	Mr.	Rakesh Choudhary
	Mr.	Manav Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶19

Order

¶20

09/02/2024

¶21

1.The instant pre-arrest bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are having apprehension of their arrest in connection with FIR No.06/2015 registered at Police Station C.I.D Jaipur, District CID(SOG) Jaipur

[2024:RJ-JP:6839]

[CRLMB-1555/2024]

(2 of 3)

for the offences under Sections 420, 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 6A of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that accusedpetitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He submits that FIR was registered in the year 2015 and charge-sheet has been filed against other co-accused persons, whereas the investigation against the petitioners was kept pending. He submits that the entire examination has already been cancelled. Similarly situated co-accused-Sarita Beniwal has been granted benefit of pre-arrest ball by a co-ordinate bench of this court. He also submits that custodial Interrogation of petitioners are not required in these matters.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the ball applications. 4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioners and taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that similarly situated co-accused-Sarita Beniwal has been granted benefit of pre-arrest bail by a co-ordinate bench of this court, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to allow this anticipatory ball applications.

¶28

Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications are allowed. The S.H.O/1.0/Arresting Officer, Police Station C.I.D Jaipur, District CID (SOG) Jalpur in FIR No.06/2015 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely (i) Dinesh Dhaka S/o Shri Kishnaram Dhaka (ii) Shree Ram Godara S/o Jagdish Ram Godara and (iii) Sunil Kumar S/o Dheema Ram , they shall be

¶29

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1555/2024]

¶30

[2024:RJ-JP:6839]

¶31

released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/1.0/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶32

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (i) that the 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 any police officer, and

¶33

(iii) That the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

Naval Kishore-RAHUL/29-30

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Dhaka S/O Kishnaram Dhaka 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

Vtc Leasing and Finance Ltd. Vs Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal S/O Shri Mohanlal Agarwal

Ishneet Saluja Son of Late Shri Ranjeet Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Boduram Kumawat S/O Shri Narayan Kumawat, Vs Shimbhudayal Agarwal S/O Late Hajari Lal Agarwal

Murli Manohar Naamdev S/O Shri Badri Lal Naama Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Bhanwar Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Navjot Kaur W/O Jaspreet Singh D/O Polla Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan