✦ Rajasthan High Court · 10 Jan 2012

The High Court · 2012

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ2 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
10 Jan 2012
Bench
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Judgment

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajneesh Gupta for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Rathore, P.P. for the State. ****** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that three FIRs were registered against the accused- petitioner and four co-accused being 95/08, 96/08 and 97/08 in the same Police Station i.e. Sadar, Karauli for offence u/s.399, 402 and 307 of IPC. Two co-accused Hari Ram and Cheta have been released on bail after arrest by coordinate bench of this Court vide orders dated 27.1.09 and 16.12.09 respectively. Petitioner is in jail for last more than two months. He does not have any criminal case against him prior to registration of the above cases. He would undertake not to misuse the liberty of bail and would maintain good conduct while on bail and would not indulge in any offence in future.

Investigation is almost complete and trial may take long. Challan has been filed. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of this case but taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate 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 Pappu S/o Sube Gurjar shall be released on bail in F.I.R. No.97/2008, P.S. Sadar Karauli for offence u/s.399, 402, 353 and 307 of IPC 2 and u/s. 3/25 of Arms Act and section 11 of the Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till conclusion of the trial.

However, in case it is found that any other criminal case is pending against petitioner and that misstatement has been made about his whereabouts or non- registration of any other criminal case or any new case in future is registered against him, the bail so granted to him by this court in this bail application would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of prosecution even by the trial court. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/ All corrections made in the judgement/order have been incorporated in the judgement/order being emailed. (Ravi Sharma,P.A.)

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 353, 399, 402; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Arms Act, 1959 — ss. 3, 25; Rajasthan Dacoity Affected Areas Act — s. 11.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Rajasthan High Court, on 10 Jan 2012. 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