Allowed

Rohit @ Bafla S/O Navalkishore v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Sept 2024CRLMB/5260/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Acknowledging he was not named in the FIR and no overt act was assigned against him, the Court released him on personal bond with sureties without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the trial Court.

Rohit @ Bafla S/O Navalkishore Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:40358]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5260/2024

¶4

Rohit @ Bafla S/o Navalkishore, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Masjid Ke Pas Lanka Colony, Baran Police Station Kotwali, Baran, Dist. Baran, (Raj.). (Accused Petitioner Presently In Baran Jail.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anirudh Tyagi
	Mr. Buddhi Prakash Meena
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Aarti Sharma, Public Prosecutor
	Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan for complainant

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶11

23/09/2024

¶12

This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No.23/2024, registered with the Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offences under Sections 307, 323, 341, 504, 147, 148, 149 & 384 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3()(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case merely because of his presence on the spot of the alleged incident. /Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased and as per the statement of witness Rahul Rathore recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:40358]

[CRLMB-5260/2024]

the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2024 and Police after completion of investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter. Counsel further submits that the fatal injuries sustained by the injured which are caused by sharp weapon, has not been attributed to the petitioner and recovery of iron pipe has been shown at the instance of the petitioner, therefore, he may be released on bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State assisted by counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submit that the petitioner is the member of unlawful assembly, therefore, he does not deserve any liberty from this Court.

¶19

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers. 5. The petitioner has not been named in the FIR lodged by the father of the deceased who is also an eye witness and in the statements of the eye witness recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, no specific overt-act has been assigned to the petitioner. 6. Taking into consideration the above facts so also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before

[2024:RJ-JP:40358]

[CRLMB-5260/2024]

(3 of 3)

the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶26

Satyendra/111

Rohit @ Bafla S/O Navalkishore v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit @ Bafla S/O Navalkishore 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

Lokesh Kumar S/O Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Santram Dayma S/O Kanhaiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Akshay Kumar S/O Bani Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kapil Kumar S/O Sadan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Aavid S/O Jabbar Vs State of Rajasthan

Munfed @ Buggi Son of Sardara Khan Vs State of Rajasthan