Allowed

Chaman S/O Pannalal v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 May 2025CRLMB/6511/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application by accused arrested in FIR No. 350/2024 for offences under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) BNS. First bail had been dismissed for breaching appearance conditions. Considering about three months' custody and delay in trial, the court allowed bail subject to bond and monthly police-station presence.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, plus monthly presence before concerned police station till conclusion of trial.

Chaman S/O Pannalal Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20927]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶4

6511/2025

¶5

Chaman S/o Pannalal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nayako Ka Mohalla Sarwadi Gate Old City Kishangarh, Police Station Kishangarh, District Ajmer.

¶6

(At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

19/05/2025

¶15

The instant 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 350/2024, registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer, for the offence(s) under Sections 331(4) and 305(A) of the BNS.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. First bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed on the ground that petitioner breached the conditions enshrined in the original order, whereby this Court enlarged the petitioner on bail, with the condition that petitioner shall appear before the concerned SHO on every 25^th of the month. It is further contended that offences alleged against the petitioner are triable by Magistrate. After

[2025:RJ-JP:20927]

[CRLMB-6511/2025]

(2 of 3)

rejection of the first bail application, only charges have been framed against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time. Accused-petitioner is ready and willing to abide by the conditions imposed by this court, therefore the petitioner’s second bail application may be allowed.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application and submitted that vide order 07.042025 first bail application of petitioner was dismissed, considering the fact that petitioner despite granted liberty to mark his presence before the concerned SHO. It is also contended that petitioner is having criminal antecedents, therefore the second bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶22

Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, considering the fact that petitioner has remained in custody for the period approximately three months and further trial of the case will take considerable time. I deem it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶23

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner, Chaman S/o Pannalal, in connection with FIR No. 350/2024, registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000-50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:20927]

[CRLMB-6511/2025]

7 The accused- petitioner is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioner to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Magistrate.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

ashu /9

Chaman S/O Pannalal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaman S/O Pannalal v. the 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

Satyanarayan Gupta Son of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohail Anwar Lone S/O Mohammad Anwar Lone Vs Tata Capital Housing Finance Ltd.

Bhaskar Pareek S/O Late Shri Girdhari Lal Pareek, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Agresh Sharma Son of Shri Buddhiram Sharma Vs Shri Laxmikant Biyani Son of Late Shri Shivbhagwan Biyani

Madangopal Gandhi S/O Sh. Nanagram Saini, Vs Tulsi Narayan Gupta S/O Late Sh. Badri Narayan