Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2885 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 13 July, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
10122/2021
Sher Ali S/o Mamrej, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vill. Jamitpura Ps
Taleda Dist. Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Bundi
Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10929/2021
1. Jakir Hussain S/o Mohammed Ramjani, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vill. Jamitpura Ps Taleda Dist. Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Bundi Raj.)
2. Saddam Hussain S/o Sharif Mohammed, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vill. Jamitpura Ps Taleda Dist. Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Bundi Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10930/2021
1. Sehjad Ali Alias Pappu S/o Mohammed Ramjani, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill. Jamitpura Ps Taleda Dist. Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Bundi Raj.)
2. Shakir Hussasin S/o Mamrez, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vill.
Jamitpura Ps Taleda Dist. Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Bundi Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10122/2021]
10934/2021 Altaf Alias Kallu Marhoom S/o Jahid Hussain, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Jamitpura, Police Station, Taleda, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail, Bundi (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary present in the Court For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
13/07/2021
1. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.190/2021 was registered at Police Station Taleda,
District Bundi (Raj.) for offence under Sections 323, 341, 308 &
143 I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that parties are
related to each other. There is property dispute between the
parties. The interim order in force was also in favour of petitioners'
side. The offence would not travel beyond Section 325 IPC. There
is cross F.I.R.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these bail
applications.
5. I have considered the contentions.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10122/2021]
6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the
petitioners, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.
7. These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioners 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.
8. A copy of this order be placed in connected files.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /20-23
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!