Allowed

Ali Mohmmad S/O Jumma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2025CRLMB/15636/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail applications filed by two accused named in an FIR under various sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, noting cross cases between parties and injuries to both sides.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail with personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each; required to mark presence in police station every three months.

Ali Mohmmad S/O Jumma Vs State of Rajasthan — Money Laundering | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:3107]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15636/2024

¶4

Ali Mohmmad S/o Jumma, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Jhantli, P.s. Sikri, District Deeg, Rajasthan (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Deeg).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 31/2025

¶11

Hasam @ Hakam S/o Umar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jhantali, P.s. Sikari, District Deeg (Bharatpur), Rajasthan (Confined At District Jail, Deeg).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶15

Fajaru S/o Surjan, R/o Jhantali, P.s. Sikari, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Shahjahan Dharmendra Joshi Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary Akshay Dadhich
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	N.S. Dhakar, PP Abhishek Garg, for complainant

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶19

Order

¶20

22/01/2025

¶21

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483

¶22

B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.359/2024 registered at Police Station Sikri,

¶23

District Deeg for offences punishable under Sections 189(2),

¶24

[CRLMB-15636/2024]

¶25

[2025:RJ-JP:3107] (2 of 3)

¶26

115(2), 126(2), 125, 332(c) & 352 of BNS. During investigation, offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 125, 332(c), 352, 117(2) & 109 of BNS have been found proved against the petitioners.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that cross cases have been registered between the parties. Learned counsel contend that both sides have sustained injury. There are omnibus allegations against the petitioners. It is contended that petitioners are in custody since long. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. Trial will take time in its conclusion.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. They submit that petitioners are duly named in the FIR.

¶29

I have considered the contentions.

¶30

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as also the fact that cross cases have been registered between the parties and both sides have sustained injury, but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶31

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Ali Mohmmad S/o Jumma, & (2) Hasam @ Hakam S/o Umar, shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the

(3 of 3)

[CRLMB-15636/2024]

[2025:RJ-JP:3107]

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.

¶36

The accused-petitioners are directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station once in every three months, till trial is concluded.

¶37

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶38

If breach of this condition is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioners by this Court.

¶39

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶40

CHARU SONI /113-114

Ali Mohmmad S/O Jumma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ali Mohmmad S/O Jumma 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

Ishwar S/O Late Shantilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Tej Singh S/O Vijendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Bhil S/O Surajmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bablu S/O Bholu Vs State of Rajasthan

Alim S/O Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan

Laharu Lal S/O Bhaguram Vs State of Rajasthan