Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BHURA versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BHURA v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 6766 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2573 (9 November 2006)

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6766/2006

Bhura Vs. State of Rajasthan

Date Of Order :: 9.11.2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal

Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, counsel for petitioner.

Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor for State. ....................

Heard learned counsel for accused petitioner, learned Public

Prosecutor for the State and perused the material produced during the course of arguments.

It is contended on behalf of the accused petitioner that he has falsely been implicated in this matter on account of the village rivalry.

It is also submitted that the so called buffalow has been recovered from some relative of the complainant party.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

Without making any observation on merits, having considered the rival submissions made at the bar, nature of accusation, material on record and all other facts and circumstances, I deem it proper to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to accused petitioner Bhura.

In the result, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Bhura S/o. Late

Tulsi, he shall be released on bail by the concerned

SHO/Investigating Officer in FIR No.257/2006 registered at Police

Station Kumher provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- together with two sureties each in the sum of

Rs.5,000/- to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- 1. that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; 2. that the petitioner 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer; and 3. that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of Court.

(J.R. Goyal),J.

VS Shekhawat/-Jr.P.A.


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.