Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/16251/2024 of KAMAL SON OF MOTILAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 20 December 2024
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16251/2024 Kamal Son Of Motilal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Laxminarayanpura, Police Station Daulatpura District Jaipur, Raj. ( At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2[nd] Bail Application No. 16251/2024
Kamal Son Of Motilal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident OfLaxminarayanpura, Police Station Daulatpura District Jaipur, Raj.( At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar MeenaFor Respondent(s): Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMANOrder 20/12/2024
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section483 of BNSS.
2. F.I.R. No. 27/2023 was registered against the petitioner atPolice Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rural for the offencespunishable under Sections 420, 419, 406 & 120B of IPC.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that theaccused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.Petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2024. Counsel further submitsthat alleged offences are triable by magistrate. Charge-sheet hasbeen filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody ofthe petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, bail should not be granted.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counselfor the parties and especially the fact that alleged offences aretriable by magistrate; charge-sheet has been filed; as well asconsidering the period of custody, but without commentinganything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper toallow the bail application.
7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it isdirected that accused-petitioner- Kamal Son Of Motilal shall bereleased on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sumof Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with twosureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousandonly) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with thestipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court towhich the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearingand as and when called upon to do so.
8. Office is directed to send copy of this order forthwith to theaccused petitioner through concerned Jail Superintendent. Office isalso directed to send copy of this order to the concerned trial courtforthwith. After receiving copy of this order, the learned trial courtshall intimate the accused petitioner regarding this bail grantingorder.
09. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of theinstant bail application and would not have any impact on the trialof the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J