✦ Rajasthan High Court · 27 May 2010

SB Crlmb No.4872/10 v. State of Rajasthan

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

O R D E R S.B.CR.MISC.BAIL APPLICATION NO.4872/2010. Smt. Gulabi Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 27/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Dharmendra Kr.Srivastava for 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 Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, which is triable by the Magistrate of Ist Class. This is her first offence and except the present one, no other criminal case is pending against the petitioner. 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 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 SB Crlmb No.4872/10. 2 petitioner Smt. Gulabi W/o Shri Ganga Ram shall be released on bail in FIR No.181/2010 P.S. Kekri, District Ajmer for offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 on her 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 her 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. 16, 54; 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.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Rajasthan High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments