Sarjeet Singh S/O Sugnaram vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2515 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 942/2021
1.     Sarjeet Singh S/o Sugnaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
       Modki Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu (Presently
       Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu)
2.     Ajay @ Bhola S/o Ramprasad, R/o Dhani Kolyali, Tan
       Kalota, Police Station Khetri District Jhunjhunu (Presently
       Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu)
                                                                  ----Appellants
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.     Pratap Singh S/o Mahaveer Singh, R/o Chelasi, Nawalgarh
       District Jhunjhunu
                                                                ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Kasana, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

29/06/2021

1. Defect/s pointed out by the registry is/are waived.

2. The appellants have preferred this appeal aggrieved by order

dated 11.05.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST(POA) Act,

Jhunjhunu whereby bail application filed by the appellant was

rejected.

3. F.I.R. No.275/2021 was registered at Police Station Khetdi,

District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,

323, 307, 382 of IPC, Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and Sections

3/25 of Arms Act.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the appellants that

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-941/2021]

appellants are not named in the FIR. None of the injuries

sustained by the injured are dangerous to life. No overt act is

assigned to the appellants. It is also contended that an iron rod

and a lathi have been recovered from the appellants.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has informed the complainant

about filing of the appeal.

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

despite service.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal.

8. I have considered the contentions.

9. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the

appellants, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

10. The order dated 11.05.2021 is set aside and the appeal is

allowed and the appellants are directed to be released on bail

provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/-

(Rupees One Lakh only) and two sureties in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each to the satisfaction

of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that

Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all

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)