Allowed

Atmaram S/O Late Shri Girdharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Jan 2024CRLMB/449/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgement allows bail for two old-aged petitioners accused of cheating, forgery and criminal conspiracy under IPC. The High Court released them on personal bond and two sureties, noting the trial would take considerable time despite directives to the trial court with stipulations to appear on subsequent dates without commenting on case merits yet finding custody duration relevant.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on personal bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of Rs.25,000/ each conditioned to appear before Trial Court or any court to which matter is transferred on all subsequent dates of hearing

Atmaram S/O Late Shri Girdharilal Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:2798]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 449/2024

¶4

Atmaram S/o Late Shri Girdharilal, Aged About 77 Years, R/o Village Nindar, Police Station Harmada, DistrictJaipur West, Rajasthan. (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is In Confinement At Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

Gopallal S/o Late Shri Girdharilal, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Nindar, Police Station Harmada, DistrictJaipur West, Currently Residing At Plot No. 311, Jp Colony, Sector No. 03, Shastri Nagar, Police Station Bhatta Basti, District - Jaipur. (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is In Confinement At Central Jail Jaipur)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP Mr. Dhruv Tailor for Complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

17/01/2024

¶14

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.44/2022 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that vide order dated 28.03.1987, mutation of land

[2024:RJ-JP:2798]

[CRLMB-449/2024]

(2 of 3)

was allowed in favour of the petitioners by the court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Amber. The said order was subsequently affirmed by the Revenue Board. Petitioners are in possession of the land in question. It is further submitted that petitioners are old aged persons. He further submits that the alleged offences are based on documents and same are in possession of Investigating Agency. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Petitioners are in custody since 26.12.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for complainant opposes the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that in order to take possession of the land in question, forged documents were prepared by the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. 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; absence of criminal antecedents; charge-sheet has been filed as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶21

The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - (1) Atmaram S/o Late Shri Girdharilal and (2) Gopallal S/o Late Shri Girdharilal shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond

[2024:RJ-JP:2798]

[CRLMB-449/2024]

(3 of 3)

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 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.

¶26

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶27

GAUTAM JAIN /115

Atmaram S/O Late Shri Girdharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Atmaram S/O Late Shri Girdharilal 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

Kushal Singh S/O Dani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Meghwal S/O Khiyaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Ranka S/O Moolchand Ranka, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Saini S/O Shri Badri Mali Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajruddin S/O Kamruddin Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaasam S/O Aasu Vs the State of Rajasthan