Rajasthan High Court
Saddik Son Of Shri Atar Khan @ ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
9933/2021
1. Saddik Son Of Shri Atar Khan @ Sindhi, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Khanpur Mewan Police Station
Kishangarhbas Police District Bhiwadi, Alwar. ( At Present
In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas ).
2. Rijwan @ Kadi Son Of Shri Hakamdin, Aged About 19
Years, Resident Of Khanpur Mewan Police Station
Kishangarhbas Police District Bhiwadi, Alwar. ( At Present
In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas ).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The P.p.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
11173/2021
Asif Ali Son Of Shri Atar Khan Alias Sindhi, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Khanpur Mewan Police Station Kishangarhbas Police
District Bhiwadi, Alwar. At Present In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh, through VC
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For State : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
14/07/2021
1. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-9933/2021]
2. F.I.R. No.258/2021 was registered at Police Station
Kishangarhbas, District Alwar for offence under Sections 147, 148,
149, 341, 323 & 307 I.P.C. and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act.
3. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that there is
cross FIR. Petitioner-Saddik has sustained fracture of rib.
Photographs of the car bearing no. RJO2CE9788 has been placed
on record. This vehicle is appearing in the FIR lodged by the
complainant and also in the cross FIR lodged by the petitioner's
side. It is also contended that there is no overt act assigned to
Rizwan and Asif Ali. Injured has received injury on his leg. There
was some misunderstanding with regard to selling illicit liquor on
which the dispute took place.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
have opposed these bail applications. It is contended that
petitioners came the house of the complainant and attack the
complainant's side by opening fire. It is also contended that
vehicle of the petitioner also seized from near the premises of
complainant. It is further contended that petitioner Saddik has
criminal antecedents and the firearm was also recovered at his
instance.
5. I have considered the contentions.
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
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-9933/2021]
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 sent to concerned S.H.O. for
recording this condition in the Village Crime Record Book so that
in the event of petitoners' repeating offence, S.H.O. can move the
Court for cancellation of bail.
9. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
NIKHIL KR. YADAV /32-33
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
