Allowed

Pappu Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2024CRLMB/4128/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed an anticipatory bail application for one petitioner in an IPC case involving assault and abduction. The application was dismissed for the co-accused who withdrew it, directing the trial court to expedite that bail hearing.

What did the court decide?

Allowed anticipatory bail for Pappu Singh subject to a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each and conditions of availability for interrogation and no inducement.

Pappu Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:22852]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4128/2024

¶4

Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kalla Ka Gola Bhusawar, Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶5

Gyan Chand S/o Bhuri Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kalla Ka Gola Bhusawar, Police Station Bhusawar District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	R.R. Goyal &
	Mr.	R.B. Sharma Ganthola
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Bhawani Shankar Sharma,PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

14/05/2024

¶14

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No.236/2023 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 365 of IPC, the accused-petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation of causing injuries to injured Dalveer Singh at his legs and other body parts are specifically attributed to other co-accused. The allegation of abduction is perse false. He further submits that no offence under Section 365 of IPC is made out against the petitioners. The petitioners are ready

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:22852]

[CRLMB-4128/2024]

and willing to cooperate with the investigation and accused party has also lodged an FIR against the complainant’s party on the same day, therefore, anticipatory bail of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 Gyan Chand S/o Bhuri Singh states that he does not want to press the present anticipatory bail application qua petitioner No.2-Gyan Chand S/o Bhuri Singh and seeks liberty to surrender the accusedpetitioner No.2 before the concerned Court.

¶23

Hence, the present anticipatory bail application qua petitioner No.2 Gyan Chand S/o Bhuri Singh stands dismissed as not pressed with liberty to surrender the accused-petitioner No.2 before the concerned Court. The learned trial Court is directed to decide the bail application of the accused-petitioner No.2 expeditiously.

¶24

Considering the fact that the victim Balveer Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. specifically stated that other co-accused Gyan Chand, Lekhraj, Mohan Singh and Chandrabhan assaulted him with the aid of sticks, resulting into various injuries. The other eye-witnesses namely; Pooranmal, Heeralal, Bhajanlal, Maan Singh, Vijendra, Kamal, Raju & Keshav, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have denied the fact that victim Balveer Singh was abducted and after abduction, petitioner and other co-accused attempted to hang him

[2024:RJ-JP:22852]

[CRLMB-4128/2024]

(3 of 3)

on a tree. The injuries sustained to injured Dalveer Singh at his right and left leg were found to be grievous in nature. There is no injury at the vital part of the victim Dalveer Singh, thus, considering the above facts and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application qua accused-petitioner No.1-Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh.

¶29

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner No.1- Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh, in connection with FIR No.236/2023 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) that the petitioner No.1-Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶31

(ii) that the petitioner No.1-Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh 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 any police officer, and

¶32

(iii) that the petitioner No.1-Pappu Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

Keshav/31

Pappu Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh 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

Rahul Dhanka S/O Shri Kishan Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Shri Bagsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Sant Ram Niranjan S/O Late Shri Raghuvanshi Lal Niranjan Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil S/O Late Sh. Laxminarayan Mali Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhupindar Singh S/O Sravan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Harinarayan Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan