Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MADAN LAL AND ORS versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MADAN LAL AND ORS v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 6973 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 2617 (13 November 2006)

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6973/2006

Madan Lal and another Vs. State of Rajasthan

Date Of Order :: 13.11.2006

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal

Mr. N.A. Naqvi, counsel for petitioners.

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

Heard learned counsel for accused petitioners, learned

Public Prosecutor for the State, perused the case diary and other material produced during the course of arguments.

It is not alleged that Madan caused any injury to the injured

Yogendra and Praveen but the other accused petitioner Shiv Shankar has been ascribed one forehead injury to Praveen by sharp edged weapon.

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 do not deem it proper to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to accused petitioner Shiv

Shankar but the other accused petitioner Madan deserves the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

In the result, the bail application of Shiv Shankar is rejected and that of the accused petitioner Madan Lal is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Madan Lal S/o. Hajari Lal, he shall be released on bail by the concerned SHO/Investigating Officer in FIR

No.167/2006 registered at Police Station Kaprein, District Bundi 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.