Allowed

Ayush Lodha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/2718/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to offenses under IPC Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B. The bail was allowed subject to furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, along with standard conditions for interrogation, non-interference, and not leaving the country.

What did the court decide?

Release on anticipatory bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, with conditions for interrogation availability, no interference with witnesses, and permissio

Ayush Lodha Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11535]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2718/2024

¶4

Ayush Lodha S/o Neelam Lodha, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 170, Bhupalpura, Ps Bhupalpura, Dist Udaipur, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Bheru Singh S/o Swarup Singh, R/o Lai Ka Guda, Ambamata, Dist Udaipur, Raj.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Rakesh Kumar Sinha For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Bhati, PP with Ms. Kamla Goswami

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

07/03/2024

¶13

This anticipatory bail application has been filed by the petitioner apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.519/2023, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the present petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR and similarly situated co-accused Chhatar Singh has been granted bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Ratan Singh and Mohit have been granted regular bail by this Court, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite time. Thus, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail.

[2024:RJ-JD:11535]

[CRLMB-2718/2024]

(2 of 2)

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶19

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced at the bar, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Ayush Lodha S/o Neelam Lodha in connection with FIR No.519/2023, Police Station Ambamata, District Udaipur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

¶21

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself/herself/themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶22

(ii). that the petitioner/s 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 any police officer; and

¶23

(iii). that the petitioner/s shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶24

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶25

153-Ishan/-

Ayush Lodha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayush Lodha 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

Dariya Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Lal Suthar Vs Smt. Radha Suthar

Pramod Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra @ Sheru Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Chanan Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepu @ Dipendra Singh @ Dipendra Vs State of Rajasthan