Allowed

Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC31 May 2024CRLMB/5559/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to two petitioners charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 336 & 120-B IPC and Arms Act. The court noted three FIRs registered for the same incident and observed that bail had been granted in two connected cases, thus granting similar indulgence in the present case.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, along with conditions regarding location reports, arrest notifications, and appearance before tri

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

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5559/2024

¶3

Anil Kumar S/o Pancha Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Munjasar, P.s. Lohawat, Dist. Phalodi (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3049/2024 Vishnaram Jangu @ Vishnu Jangu S/o Mohanram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Sundanagar, Jaloda, Ps Lohawat, Dist Phalodi. (Lodged In High Security Jail, Ghoograghati, Ajmer)

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashok Bishnoi (through VC) Mr. Vikas Balia (Senior Advocate) assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi (through VC)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shrawan Kumar Bishnoi-PP (through VC)

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

(through Video Conferencing)

¶17

Order

¶18

31/05/2024

¶19

Both bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No.283/2021, registered at Police Station Dechu District Jodhpur wherein they are charged for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 427, 307, 336 & 120-B of I.P.C and 5/27 of Arms Act.

¶20

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5559/2024]

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for the alleged incident dated 14.11.2021, three different FIR bearing Nos.281/2021, 282/2021 and 283/2021 have been registered with Police Station Dechu District Jodhpur (Rural) for the same offences. Counsel submits that there cannot be three different FIRs arising out of the same incident. Counsel further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already granted indulgence of bail to the petitioners in FIR Nos.281/2021 and 282/2021 while accepting the bail application Nos.3372/2024 and 3384/2024 vide orders dated 23.04.2024 and 04.04.2024, respectively. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the indulgence of bail may also be granted in the present FIR to the petitioners.

¶22

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders as against them, several cases are pending, hence, under these circumstances, they are not entitled to get the benefit of bail.

¶23

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶24

Perusal of the FIRs as well as material available on the record indicates that with regard to the same incident dated 14.11.2021, three different FIRs bearing Nos.281/2021, 282/2021 and 283/2021 have been registered with the same Police Station Dechu, Distt. Jodhpur (Rural) for the same offences. Looking to the fact that indulgence of bail has already been granted to the petitioners in two FIRs bearing Nos.281/2021 and 282/2021, hence under these circumstances, the similar indulgence is granted to the petitioner in the instant FIR. This Court is cautious that the

¶25

[CRLMB-5559/2024]

¶26

(3 of 4)

¶27

petitioners are habitual offenders against whom several criminal cases are pending and in some of them, they are acquitted. The object of the bail is not punitive, but to secure the presence of the accused during trial. It has not been alleged by the learned Public Prosecutor that incarceration of the petitioners is required in order to prevent them from tampering with the evidence or to prevent them from extending any inducement or threat to any of the witnesses.

¶28

Therefore, considering the merits of the case and keeping the facts and circumstances of the case in mind and the fact that the trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and this Court is inclined to grant the benefit bail to both the petitioners on the following conditions:-

¶29

I) Under no circumstance, they will leave the city without informing the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer. II) They shall appear before the trial Court on each and every date.

¶30

III) They shall participate and co-operate in the further investigation, if any, as and when required. IV) They shall upon release, provide their mobile numbers to the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer and keep it switched on at all the times and also drop the google pin as as to facilitate their locations to the concerned Investigating Officer/Station House Officer.

¶31

V) In the event, any FIR/ dairy note/complaint is lodged against the petitioners, it would be open for the

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CRLMB-5559/2024]

¶34

State/Public Prosecutor/Investigating Officer/Station House Officer to seek redressal by way of seeking his cancellation of bail.

¶35

VI) If the applicants change the place of residence and their mobile numbers, they will give in writing their changed address and mobile numbers to the trial Court as well as to the Investigating Officer/Station House Officer.

¶36

Accordingly, both bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioners Anil Kumar S/o Pancha Ram and Vishnaram Jangu @ Vishnu Jangu S/o Mohanram arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶37

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶38

1-1/- Supp

Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar 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

Kailash Son of Shri Ratan by Caste Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Varsha Rathore W/O Shri Shyam Singh Rathore D/O Shri Vikram Singh Shekhawat Vs Shyam Singh Rathore S/O Shri Shrisingh Rathore

Ashok Singh Vs Smt Geeta and Anr.

Vishnaram Jangu @ Vishnu Jangu Vs State of Rajasthan

Alok Goyal S/O Late Shri Raghavdas Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan

Alok Goyal S/O Late Shri Raghavdas Goyal Vs State of Rajasthan