Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JETHA RAM versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JETHA RAM v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 4607 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2304 (17 October 2006)

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.4607/06

Date : 17.10.2006

HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J.

Mr. M.K. Garg )

Mr. Srikant Verma) for the applicant.

Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor for State.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order.

The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is only a driver and was discharging his duties as per instruction of the owner. It has been submitted that he has not misappropriated any public money or fodder. It has also been submitted that in another FIR No.32/06 P.S.

Mahajan, District Bikaner, in similar circumstances Prabhu Ram was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in S.B. Criminal

Misc. Bail Application No.3921/06 dated 14.09.2006, therefore, the matter of present applicant may also be considered for granting anticipatory bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

I have considered the submissions made before me and carefully gone through the material available on record.

Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case while taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I deem it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Jetha Ram S/o

Ram Narayan by I.O./S.H.O. in FIR No.146/2006

P.S.Lonkaransar, District Bikaner, he shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.30,000/- alongwith two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of Investigating

Officer on the following conditions:-

(i)That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii)That he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and;

(iii)That he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

(SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J. vij


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.