Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LOONA RAM & ORS. versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LOONA RAM & ORS. v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 4138 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 4383 (6 September 2007)

S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail App. No.4138/2007

(Loona Ram & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan)

Date of order : September 06, 2007

HON'BLE MR.H.R.PANWAR,J.

Mr.B.L.Bishnoi, for the petitioners.

Mr.Ashok Upadhyaya, Public Prosecutor.

Dr.A.A.Bhansali, for the complainant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the Public

Prosecutor for the State assisted by the counsel appearing for the complainant. Perused the order impugned and the challan papers.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no previous case instituted against the present petitioners and nothing has been recovered from the petitioners.

It is further contended that no injury has been caused to anyone.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that numerous shots have been fired by the petitioners. He further submits that the bail applications filed by co-accused Bhepa Ram alias Bewla, Mangi Lal and Rameshwar have been rejected by

Co-ordinate Benches of this Court by order dt. 24.7.2007 and 4.7.2007 respectively.

From perusal of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate

Benches of this Court in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application

No.2758/2007, Bhepa Ram alias Bewla vs. State of Rajasthan and S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.2322/2007 (Mangi Lal &

Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan), it appears that at that time, the matter was at the investigation stage and also the fact that number of cases have been instituted against these accused persons, however, no previous case was pointed out against the present petitioner and more particularly, the petitioners have not previously been charged and no gun has been recovered in the instant case.

Be that as it may, without commenting on the merit of the case, which may prejudice the case of either party at the trial, having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the oral arguments advanced by both the parties, I consider it just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Sec. 439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners Loona Ram s/o Bhera Ram, Ramuram s/o Manglaram and Sukhram alias

Munnaram s/o Ramu Ram be released on bail in FIR

No.49/2007, P.S. Pipar City provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

(H.R.PANWAR),J. m.asif/-


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.