Allowed

Taj Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/2752/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur entertained a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The offences alleged under the Rajasthan Excise Act are triable by a magistrate. Considering the protracted nature of the trial and lack of adverse factors, the Court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Taj Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11717]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2752/2024

¶4

Taj Mohammad S/o Ahmad, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ganv Khanpur Ghati, Ps Pingua, Dist Nuh Mewat, Haryana. (Lodged In Dist Jail Dungarpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.V.S. Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

07/03/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are

¶14

tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	42/2024
2.	Concerned Police Station	Bichhiwada
3.	District	Dungarpur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 19/54, 54A and 57 of the Rajasthan Excise Act
5.	Offences added, if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	22.02.2024

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:11717]

[CRLMB-2752/2024]

and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to him and his further incarceration is not warranted.

¶21

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

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶25

159-Pramod/-

Taj Mohammad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taj Mohammad 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

Geba Vs State of Rajasthan

Kheta Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita Vs State of Rajasthan

Safiiq @ Saddam @ Bhola Vs State of Rajasthan

Lalit Giri Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan