Rashid v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
High Court
19 Jul 2023 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · jaipur
Parties
Rashid v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
Date of order
19 Jul 2023
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
Case summary
In Rashid v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, the High Court (2023) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8828/2023
Rashid S/o Rais, Aged About 25 Years, R/o PanchkulaiyaDarwaja, Oppsite Income Tax Office, Porani Tonk, Police StationPurani, Tonk, District Tonk, (Raj.). (Presently Confined In DistrictJail Tonk)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar SharmaFor Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMANOrder
19/07/2023
1.Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section439 of Cr.P.C.
2.F.I.R. No.236/2022 was registered at Police Station
Mehandwas, District Tonk for offences under Sections 392 & 34 ofIPC.
3.It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitionerhas falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contendedthat the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is furthercontended that co-accused of this case has been granted bail by aCo-ordinate Bench of this Court and case of the petitioner is alsoon similar footing. Petitioner is in custody since 05.01.2023.Charge-sheet has been filed and trial is likely to consume time.
4.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applicationand submits that four other cases have been registered againstthe petitioner.
5.I have considered the contentions.
6.Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances;considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for boththe parties, period of custody and the fact that alleged offencesare triable by Magistrate and co-accused has been granted bail,but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of thiscase, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioneron bail.
7.This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directedthat accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided hefurnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees FiftyThousand only) together with two sureties in the sum ofRs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to thesatisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that heshall appear before that Court and any court to which the matteris transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and whencalled upon to do so.
8.However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involvein similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court.The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in theconcerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial isconcluded. If breach of any of these conditions is reported orcome to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reasonfor the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.