Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ratan Lal vs State on 11 January, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
....
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15048/2021.
Ratan Lal son of Achal Das, aged about 43 Years, resident of
Achaldas Sant House, 102-103, Adiwasi Bhawan, Silawas Dadra
Nagar, Haveli, at present residing at Jhujhani Bus Stand, Dadeli
Road, Bhinmal Police Station, Bhinmal, District Jalore.
(Lodged In District Jail, Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teja Ram through video
conferencing.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
11/01/2022
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as per guidelines,
lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts,
therefore, hearing of the matter is being taken up only through
video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through
video conferencing and the learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-
person. Perused the material available on record.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-15048/2021]
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in
connection with F.I.R. No. 159/2006, Police Station Marwar
Junction, District Pali, registered for the offences under Sections
364, 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the allegations
against the present accused-petitioner and the co-accused Raju
are similar; that the benefit of bail has been granted to the co-
accused Raju by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court; that after the
trial of the case, the co-accused Raju has been acquitted by the
learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 29.06.2007 (copy of
the judgment has been filed along with the present bail
application); that due to love marriage, since long, the accused-
petitioner is living at Gujarat; that no recovery has been made
from the accused-petitioner; that there is no substantial evidence
against the accused-petitioner; that the charge-sheet has been
filed; and that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail
may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and
fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner
and stated that there is specific allegation against the accused-
petitioner in the FIR itself and charge-sheet as well but the
learned Public Prosecutor has not controverted this fact that the
benefit of bail has already been granted to the co-accused Raju
and the allegations against the accused-petitioner are similar/
identical to that of the co-accused Raju.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-15048/2021]
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly looking to the facts that the benefit of bail has been
granted to the co-accused Raju by the co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 04.01.2007 (Second Bail Application No.
13/2007); that the allegations against the accused-petitioner and
the co-accused Raju are similar/identical; that the charge-sheet
has been filed against the accused-petitioner; and that the trial
will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any
opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to
be accepted.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered
that the petitioner, Ratan Lal S/o Achal Das, arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No. 159/2006, Police Station Marwar
Junction, District Pali, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in
any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to
appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when
called upon to do so.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
24-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
