Allowed

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/O Shri Medaram Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2024CRLMB/4186/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an FIR involving offences under Sections 307, 394, 397, 398, 34 IPC and Arms Act. The court noted that the petitioner was not caught on the spot, faces were covered in CCTV footage, and no Test Identification Parade was conducted, leading to the conclusion that bail was justified without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/O Shri Medaram Meena Vs… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:31990]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4186/2024

¶4

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/o Shri Medaram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mehrana, Tehsil Bhadra, Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.G. Chopra, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

29/07/2024

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.133/2024 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 307, 394, 397, 398 & 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amended 2019).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel also submits that as per the averments in the FIR, there are two persons who are involved in the alleged incident whose faces were covered with mask. One of them was caught hold at the spot and other ran away.

[CRLMB-4186/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:31990]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of statement of the co-accused which cannot be read against the petitioner for his conviction. Learned counsel further submits that no weapon said to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and there is not even a single antecedent to the discredit of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 29.02.2024 and the trial of the case will take its own time, therefore, the petitioner may be released on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-petitioner has been found involved in the matter on the basis of CCTV footage and the statements of the witnesses who stated that two persons were involved in the incident. Therefore, he does not deserve any liberty from this Court.

¶20

Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that as per the FIR, the accused were not known to the officials of the bank and they were in the bank with their covered faces and the petitioner was not caught on the spot however, he was lateron arrested on 29.02.2024 but no Test Identification Parade was conducted. On a query made by this Court to the learned Public Prosecutor, he stated that in the CCTV footage also faces of the accused persons

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:31990]

[CRLMB-4186/2024]

not visible. In the above circumstances, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above in connection with FIR No.133/2024 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶28

Ashish Kumar /20

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/O Shri Medaram Meena v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/O Shri Medaram Meena v. the 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

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deshraj S/O Ramjilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bhambhani S/O Kanhaiya Pritam Bhambhani Vs State of Rajasthan

Happaram Vishnoi S/O Chhogaram Vs Central Narcotics Bureau

Hanif @ Kada S/O Japsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/O Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan