SB Crlmb No.4900/10 v. State of Rajasthan
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 ss. 14, 19, 54, 54(A)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
Judgment
O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4900/2010. Rakesh Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 27/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri J.R. Chaudhary for the petitioner. Shri Amit Poonia, Public Prosecutor for State. ****** Heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the only offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sections 14, 19/54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act,
1950. This is his first offence which is triable by the Magistrate of Ist Class. There is no previous case except the present pending against the petitioner. He is in jail for quite some time. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Considering the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation, the materials on record and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and SB Crlmb No.4900/10. 2 proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. In the result, this bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Rakesh Meena S/o Shriram Meena shall be released on bail in FIR No.9/2010-11 P.S. Excise Circle Adarsh Nagar for offence under Sections 14, 19/54 and 54(A) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 — ss. 14, 19, 54, 54(A); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 27 May 2010. The bench was MOHAMMAD RAFIQ.
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.