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 5, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Firoj Khan vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 3 April, 2018

Author: Pankaj Bhandari

Bench: Pankaj Bhandari

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR
           S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 3425/2018

Firoj Khan S/o Shri Abdul Khalid B/c Musalman, R/o Ghori Wale
Chacha Ka Makan, Subji Mandi Ki Tek, Baran (Raj.) (At Present
Confined At Central Jail Kota)
                                                      ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
State Of Rajasthan Through P.p.
                                                   ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Shafiqur Rahman For Respondent(s) : Mr.R.R.Singh Rathore,PP For Complainant Mr.Sajid Ali Investigating Officer Mr.Ramkishan, CI PS Dadabari, Kota HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 03/04/2018

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

2. F.I.R. No.60/2018 was registered at Police Station Dadabari, Kota for offence under Sections 307/34, 120B I.P.C. and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the incident took place on 23.2.2018 at 7.00 p.m. Petitioner was in custody from 16.2.2018. Petitioner has matrimonial dispute with sister of complaint and only for that reason he has been falsely made accused in this case.

4. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. His contention is that petitioner has hired as contract killer which (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3425/2018] is evident from recording of CCTV Footage. With regard to engaging the contract killer, it is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has himself filed a complaint against co- accused so-called contract killer in July 2016.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also opposed the bail application.

6. I have considered the contentions.

7. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Teekam/36