Sandeep Choudhary S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 255 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1865/2020

Sandeep Choudhary S/o Shri Hanuman Choudhary, Aged About
33 Years, Business Car Bazar, R/o Village Kirdauli, Thana Sadar,
At Plot No. 26-27 Shastri Nagar, Nehrupark, Thana Kotwali Distt.
Sikar   At    House    No.     74,     Shyam         Vihar        Advocate       Colony,
Heerapura, Police Thana Karni Vihar Jaipur (At Present Confined
In Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                                          ----Appellant
                                     Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.      Shree Hanuman Sahay Kala S/o Shree Ram Lal Kala, R/o
        72 Shyam Vihar Advocate Colony, Heerapura, Jaipur
        Police Station Karni Vihar Jaipur (West) Raj.
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Teeka Ram Meena through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

13/01/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

09.12.2020 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur

Metropolitan-II (Raj.), whereby, bail application filed by the

appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.295/2020 was registered at Police Station

Karnivihar Jaipur for offence under Sections 323, 379, 384 I.P.C.

and Sections 3(1)(d), 3(1)(e), 3(1)(f) of SC/ST Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that a dispute

took place between the landlord and the tenant. Parties have

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1865/2020]

entered into a compromise.

4. Counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact of

parties having entered into compromise.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

8. The order dated 09.12.2020 is quashed and set aside and

the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-

appellant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)

together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the

stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to

which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /66

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)