Allowed

Sukhram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 May 2024CRLMB/5520/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur considered a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for an accused charged with offences under Sections 392/34 IPC. The court observed that the case is triable by a Magistrate with a high probability of a long trial, and consequently allowed bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Sukhram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:20284]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5520/2024

¶4

Sukhram S/o Amra, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kherapada, Choti Sarvan, P.s. Danpur, Dist. Banswara,raj. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Banswara)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vijay	Kumar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun	Kumar,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

07/05/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of t	he Case
1.	FIR Number	84/2024
2.	Concerned Police Station	Danpur
3.	District	Banswara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Section 392 of IPC
5.	Offences added, if any	Under Section 392/34 of IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	15.04.2024

¶15

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his

¶16

incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JD:20284]

[CRLMB-5520/2024]

the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶22

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶23

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶25

682-Samvedana/-

Sukhram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhram 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

Shakuntla Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh @ Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vipin Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mayadevi Vs State of Rajasthan

Deva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan