Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

LAL SINGH versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


LAL SINGH v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 2650 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 1581 (13 July 2006)

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.2650/06

Date : 13.07. 2006

HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J.

Mr. Amitabh Acharya 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 the learned counsel for the applicant is that in the instant case after lodging First

Information Report, Police after thorough investigation reached to the conclusion that it is not a case where challan is to be filed and on Protest Petition cognizance has been taken. He further submits that atleast prima facie, it appears that he has been falsely involved in the case. In last, he prays that in above circumstances, he may be enlarged on 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.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant Lal Singh son of

Umad Singh Ranawat by I.O./S.H.O. in FIR No.142/2001 P.S.

Pindawara, 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.


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.