Allowed

Vijendra Singh S/O Shripati v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMB/16273/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed bail objection and granted anticipatory bail to petitioner Vijendra Singh apprehending arrest over FIR 223/2023 involving IPC 307, 427, 504, 506, 34, considering co-accused already on bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- conditioned on availability for interrogation, non-obstruction of justice, and non-export from India without pe

Vijendra Singh S/O Shripati Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:6677]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16273/2023

¶4

Vijendra Singh S/o Shripati, R/o Gujarpada Maharaj Baagh, Badi, PS, Badi, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Panjab Singh S/o Sovran Singh, R/o Gurjarpara Maharajbag, Badi, Dhoulpur.

¶10

----Complainant/Respondent/Victim

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

08/02/2024

¶15

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Badi, District Dholpur under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.223/2023, registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 307, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that a cross FIR has been lodged by the accused-petitioner against the complainant. Learned

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6677]

[CRLMB-16273/2023]

counsel also submitted that though case falls under Section 307 of IPC, but admittedly, no person has been injured in this case.

¶21

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner argued that there would be no necessity of custodial interrogation. Learned counsel further argued that the other co-accused person namely Shivnarayan has also been granted benefit of bail by this Court S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12838/2023 vide order dated 06.11.2023 and also that, trial will take time to conclude and, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that six other cases are registered against the accused-petitioner and therefore, the accusedpetitioner may not be released on bail. 5. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶23

As per the prosecution version, on 13.06.2023, at around 12 p.m., the present petitioner along with another accused namely Shivnarayan, Pintu, Prem Singh and Sachin entered the house of the complainant party and started firing on them.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that that the co-accused Shivnarayan has already been enlarged on bail by this Court, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the accusedpetitioner.

[CRLMB-16273/2023]

[2024:RJ-JP:6677]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accusedpetitioner Vijendra Singh S/o Shripati , in connection with FIR No.223/2023, registered at Police Station Badi, District Dholpur, the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:-

¶29

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

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶33

AARZOO ARORA /10-S.

Vijendra Singh S/O Shripati v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh S/O Shripati 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

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Girraj and Others

Smt Pana and Ors. Vs Meghraj and Ors.

Smt Rajput Gayatri Devi and Others Vs Radhey Shyam and Others

Mansukh Saini S/O Shri Mawasiram @ Anna Vs the State of Rajasthan

Abdul Rajjak Son of Abdul Shakoor Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Imilal S/O Shri Bhomaram Vs Ramniwas S/O Shri Krishan Lal