Allowed

Amit S/O Shri Dayaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Mar 2024CRLMB/2312/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application filed by three accused-petitioners seeking anticipatory bail in an IPC offence case. The court granted bail on the condition that the grievous head injury was attributed to another person, Satisha, while the petitioners faced only simple injury charges, supported by a cross-FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each subject to specific conditions.

Amit S/O Shri Dayaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:13260]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2312/2024

¶4

Amit S/o Shri Dayaram, Aged About 25 Years

¶5

Govind S/o Shri Hoshiyar, Aged About 30 Years

¶6

Ranjeet S/o Shri Kanwarlal, Aged About 40 Years All are R/o Gram Ujoli, P.S. Kotkasim, District KhairthalTijara (Rajasthan).

¶7

----Accused/Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

18/03/2024

¶15

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the accused-petitioners against the order dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh Bas, Alwar under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.279/2023, registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 506 of IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submitted that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that no specific allegation in relation to any injury has been made in the FIR against accusedpetitioners Amit, Govind and Ranjeet. In this case, all the injured

[2024:RJ-JP:13260]

[CRLMB-2312/2024]

(2 of 3)

persons, except injured Smt. Mukesh Devi, have sustained simple injuries. A linear fracture was found on the parietal bone of the injured, Smt. Mukesh Devi, but that injury has not been attributed to present petitioners Amit, Govind or Ranjeet. The grievous head injury to injured-Mukesh Devi has been attributed to one Satisha wife of Dayaram. Learned counsel further submits that in this case, a cross-FIR against the injured persons has also been lodged by accused party of present FIR. The cross-FIR of this case is FIR No.280/2023, registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi, according to which present petitioners Amit, Ranjeet and Govind have also sustained injuries, therefore, the accusedpetitioners may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioners should not be granted benefit of bail.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that all the injured persons in this case, except Smt. Mukesh Devi, have sustained simple injuries and that the grievous head injury inflicted to injured Smt. Mukesh Devi is attributed to Smt. Satisha wife of Dayaram and not to the present petitioners, this Court is inclined to accept this bail application and enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accusedpetitioners (1) Amit S/o Shri Dayaram, (2) Govind S/o Shri

[2024:RJ-JP:13260]

[CRLMB-2312/2024]

(3 of 3)

Hoshiyar and (3) Ranjeet S/o Shri Kanwarlal in connection with FIR No.279/2023, registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi, they shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:-

¶29

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

¶30

(2) that the accused-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 to any Police Officer; and

¶31

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

¶32

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶33

Yogesh/260

Amit S/O Shri Dayaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit S/O Shri Dayaram 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

Mahendra Singh Rajawat S/O Bhanwar Singh Vs Chhitar Lal S/O Ladu Lal

Mohanlal Vs New Iindia Insurance

Prakash Meena Vs New India Insurance

Rajveer Singh Tanwar S/O Shri Sugan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopiram S/O Ramkaran Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaswant Yogi @ Vishal @ Ishu Yogi S/O Sadanand Yogi Vs State of Rajasthan