Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MUKESH versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


MUKESH v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 7193 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 5236 (30 October 2007)

SB Cr.M.Bail Appl.No.7193/07.

S.B. CR.MISC.BAIL APPL.NO.7193/2007.

Mukesh

Vs.

State

Date of order : 30/10/2007.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

Shri Mohar Pal Meena for the petitioner.

Shri Harshvardhan Nandvana P.P. for the State.

******

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that though initially the accused-petitioner was arrested on 25/8/2007 in connection with investigation of one first information report but during the course of investigation, two more first information reports were registered. He was thus shown to have been arrested by production warrant in all these first information reports namely; FIR

Nos.125/2007, 126/2007 and 127/2007 from time to time. The allegation against the petitioner is committing the offence u/S.136 of the Indian

Electricity Act which is punishable by sentence of three years and triable by the Court of the

Magistrate, Ist Class.

SB Cr.M.Bail Appl.No.7193/07.

The accused-petitioner was arrested on 25/8/2007 and challan has been filed on 31/8/2007.

He is no more needed for the purpose of investigation. Except the above referred FIRs registered against the petitioner with P.S. Tehala,

District Alwar, no other criminal case is pending against him. It is argued that petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial court on each and every date of hearing during the pendency of trial, completion of which is likely to take long hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail during trial.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and argued that in view of the seriousness of offence, the petitioner is not entitled for indulgence of grant of bail pending trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but taking into consideration the aforesaid arguments and the fact that petitioner is in jail since 25/8/2007, I deem it appropriate to enlarge him on bail.

In the result, this bail application u/S.439

Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Mukesh S/o Ramkishan Meena shall be

SB Cr.M.Bail Appl.No.7193/07. released on bail in F.I.R. No.125/2007 P.S. Tehala,

District Alwar for offence under Section 136 of the

Indian Electricity Act subject to his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that court on all dates of hearing until conclusion of the trial.

In case, the accused-petitioner is found indulging again in the offence of theft at any point of time in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to apply for cancellation of his bail on this ground alone.

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil


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.