Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Himanshu S/O Devendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 2022

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

       S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.
                               13440/2022

Himanshu S/o Devendra Singh, R/o House No. 234, Gali No. 3
Near    Shyam    Temple,      Ballabhgarh,         P.s.    Ballabhgarh,   Distt.
Ballabhgarh ( Haryana) ( Presently In High Security Central Jail
Ajmer)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Anupam Sharma
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Arvind Kumar, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                                    Order

14/10/2022

1. Petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No. 19/2020 was registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 302 and 120-B of IPC & Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Mohit has been granted bail. At the time of rejection of first bail, it was mentioned that petitioner was seen in DVR. However, as per report of the police, DVR was played but site of occurrence was not clear and no accused could be identified from the DVR. It is also contended that principal witnesses have been examined. None of the witnesses has shown the presence of the petitioner at (Downloaded on 19/10/2022 at 12:03:54 AM) (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13440/2022] the place of occurrence.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Taking note of the fact that principal witnesses have not identified the present petitioner, that no test identification parade was conducted in the present case and that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 2 years and 9 months, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/33 (Downloaded on 19/10/2022 at 12:03:54 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)