Allowed

Vinod Kushwah S/O Sh. Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2024CRLMB/29/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications under Section 439 CrPC by two accused in FIR No.436/2023 (Sections 379 and 411 IPC). Court noted offences are triable by Magistrate with maximum punishment of three years and period of custody, allowed bail on personal bonds.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners released on bail: personal bond Rs.50,000 each plus two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, with stipulations to appear in court, refrain from other offences, and mark quarterly police-statio

Vinod Kushwah S/O Sh. Sitaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:905]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16480/2023

¶4

Hemraj Jain S/o Shri Shubhkaran Jain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Plot No. 171, Ram Mohalla, Ward No. 21, Police Station Malpura, District Tonk, At Present Tenant At Plot No. 123/92 Thadi Market, Police Station Shiprapath, District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 29/2024 Vinod Kushwah S/o Sh. Sitaram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Siwad, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwara, Distt. Sawai Madhopur, At Present Tenant At House Of Mangal Kushwah, Shyam Nagar Third Muhana, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Jail In Jaipur).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Anshuman Saxena
	Mr.	Nishant Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	M. K. Sheoran, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

08/01/2024

¶19

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.436/2023 registered at Police Station Malpura Gate, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence under

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:905]

[CRLMB-16480/2023]

Section 379 of IPC. Presently, the investigation is being conducted for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC.

¶24

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. They submit that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and maximum punishment for the alleged offences is 3 years. They further submit that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that one other case has been registered against the accused-petitioner- Vinod Kushwah. 4. I have considered the contentions.

¶26

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and maximum punishment for the alleged offences is 3 years; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶27

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - (1) Hemraj Jain S/o Shri Shubhkaran Jain (2) Vinod Kushwah S/o Sh. Sitaram shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:905]

[CRLMB-16480/2023]

Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

It is made clear that the accused petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence once in every three months in the concerned police station.

¶33

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

GAUTAM JAIN /144-145

Vinod Kushwah S/O Sh. Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kushwah S/O Sh. Sitaram 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

Ramroop Roj Son of Shri Ramji Lal Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Taiyyab S/O Atar Khan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhagchand @ Ballu S/O Chatru @ Chatra Vs State of Rajasthan

Chanchal Kumari W/O Shri Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jatin S/O Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Girdhari S/O Shri Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan