Allowed

Parmanand @ Pawan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2024CRLMB/225/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed by four accused-petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court observed that keeping them in custody served no useful purpose, the case involves perceptions and conjectures, and trial may take a long time, granting bail upon furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Parmanand @ Pawan Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:1949]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 225/2024

¶4

Parmanand @ Pavan S/o Dayaram, aged about 32 years R/o Chhila, P.S. Lohawat, District Phalodi. 2. Leeladhar s/o Tau Ram @ Dau Ram, aged about 30 years, resident of Chhila, Police Station Lohawat, District Phalodi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Babulal, resident of Chhila House, Tehsil Lohawat

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 226/2024 1. Bhupedra @ Bhavesh @ Bhura S/o Daya Ram, aged about 31 years, R/o Chhila, Police Station Lohawat, District Phalodi 2. Nand Kishor @ Fina Joshi S/o Mangi Lal, aged about 45 years, resident of Joshiyo Ki Gali, Lordiya, Police Station Phalodi, District Phalodi.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1.	State Of Rajasthan,Through Pp
2.	Ramesh Kumar S/o Babulal, resident of Chhila,	Tehsil
	Lohawat,District Phalodi.

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Mr. Kunal Bishnoi For Petitioner(s) : For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, AGA Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶17

Order

¶18

12/01/2024

¶19

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing these applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the

¶20

matter are tabulated herein below:

¶21

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	43/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Lohawat
3.	District	Jodhpur

¶22

(2 of 3)

¶23

[2024:RJ-JD:1949]

¶24

Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 147, 341, 323, 326 & 336/149 of IPC -

¶25

Offences added, if any 6. Date of passing of impugned 22.12.2023 order

¶26

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶27

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

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The parties have scuffled, thereafter, victim Munni Devi sustained injury during stone pelting. Victim Munni Devi sustained six injuries. No specific allegation has been attributed to the petitioners. No useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars. In view of the deliberation and enunciation made therein and since there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[2024:RJ-JD:1949]

¶31

suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

C-1-Samvedana/-

Parmanand @ Pawan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmanand @ Pawan 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

Bharat Patidar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammd Suhel Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Piyush Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra @ Bhavesh @ Bhura Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganpat Vs State of Rajasthan