Allowed

Ravindra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 May 2024CRLMB/6377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC for three accused charged under Sections 457 and 380 IPC in FIR 17/2024 of P.S. Dungla. The court noted the offences are magistrate-triable and trial may take long, and allowed bail with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Each accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:23369]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6377/2024

¶4

Ravindra S/o Shri Narendra, Aged About 22 Years,

¶5

Manish S/o Shri Roshan, Aged About 23 Years,

¶6

Rakesh S/o Madan, Aged About 20 Years, All are R/o Papiliya Rundi, P.S. Manasa, District Nimach, Madhya Pradesh (At Present Lodge in District Jail, Chittorgarh)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Kaluram Bhati
	Mr. Naresh Charniya
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati,P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶13

Order

¶14

22/05/2024

¶15

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-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are

¶16

tabulated herein below:

¶17

S. No.	Particular	s of the Case
1.	FIR Number	17/2024.
2.	Concerned Police Station	Dungla.
3.	District	Chittorgarh.
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	U/Sec. 457,380 of IPC.
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	18.05.2024.

¶18

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case for

[CRLMB-6377/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:23369]

(2 of 2)

the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accusedpetitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶23

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.

¶24

I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. 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.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶27

Abhishek Kumar S.No.517

Ravindra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra 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

Sangeeta Dadhich Vs Harish Kumar Kundal

Bhoora Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hamir Khan and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Mithu Lal and Anr. Vs State

Racharam @ Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman Ram Vs State of Rajasthan