BAIL APPL No. 3586 of 2008 · Rajasthan High Court
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Biri Singh, for applicant-Vivek Goyal Mr. Satyendra K. Gupta, for applicant-Rajesh Kala Mr. SR Surana, for applicant-Mohan Lal Goyal Mrs. Sadhna Bhatt, Public Prosecutor for State. First bail application Nos.6818/07, 7895/07 & 7769/07 were dismissed vide common order dt.17/01/08. Hence petitioners have separately filed instant 2nd bail application. Counsel submits that after rejection of first bail applications, charges were framed on 04/03/08 and out of 48 prosecution witnesses, only Bhag Chand (Pw2) has been examined while statement of PW1 (M.K.Sharma) is in progress but since relevant documents as demanded by one of co-accused Ummed Singh has not been supplied to him, his statement could not have been concluded by now. Counsel further submits that first prosecution witness was examined on 07/03/08 and looking to total numbers of witnesses available for recording their statements, Cr Bail 3586/08 //2// trial may take its own time and petitioners (Mohanlal Goyal, Vivek Goyal & Rajesh Kala) are in judicial custody for more than six months, since 18/09/07, 04/10/07 & 24/08/07 respectively. Taking into consideration all the facts & circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on merits, this Court considers it proper to allow these bail applications U/s 439, CrPC. Accordingly applicants (Mohanlal Goyal, Vivek Goyal & Rajesh Kala) be released on post-arrest bail U/s 439 CrPC in FIR-251/07 registered at PS Ashok Nagar, (Jaipur) for offences alleged provided each of them furnishes personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) with two sureties each for Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of trial Court for their appearance before that court on subsequent dates of hearing whenever called upon to do so. (Ajay Rastogi), J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.