Hitesh Malav S/O Mohan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 266 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1744/2020

1.      Hitesh Malav S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
        Taraj Police Station Sarola At Present R-5 Quarter No. 81
        Aavasiya     Colony       Plot     Undal       Police    Station   Sadar
        Jhalawar .
2.      Lala @ Bahadur S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 33
        Years, R/o Taraj, Police Station Sarola, At Present
        Subhash Colony, Jhalawar.
3.      Chauthmal Goswami S/o Raghunath, Aged About 30
        Years, R/o Dhanodakala Police Station Sarola At Present
        Raju Bhai Ka Makan Subhash Colony Jhalawar (At Present
        In Sub Jail Jhalawar)
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.      Ratanlal S/o Shri Hanuman Lal Raigar, Aged About 51
        Years, R/o R 5 143, Tharmal Colony, Jhalawar Sadar, Raj.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma for Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

13/01/2021

1. Appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by order

dated 18.11.2020 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases Jhalawar,

whereby, bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439

Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No. 207/2020 was registered at Police Station Jhalawar

Sadar, District Jhalawar for offence under Sections 307, 341, 323,

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-1744/2020]

34 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of POCSO Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that charge-

sheet has been filed. Appellant has remained in custody since

03.11.2020. None of the injuries are dangerous to life.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor contends that he has informed the

complainant about filing of the present appeal.

5. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

7. I have considered the contentions.

8. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

9. The order dated 18.11.2020 is quashed and set aside and

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

appellants shall be released on bail provided each of them

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 they 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

NIKHIL KR. YADAV /60

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)