Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHUTTMAL versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHUTTMAL v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 7641 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 3314 (22 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPL. NO.7641/2006

Chhutmal V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Date of order ::: December 22, 2006

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA

Mr.M.K. Kaushik, for the applicant.

Mr.R.P. Kuldeep, PP for the State.

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR

No.318/06 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur for the offence under Section 342, 147, 364-A, 386, 420 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the material / case diary made available to me during the arguments of the case..

The submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is not involved in the alleged offence and has been simply implicated on account of the fact that Shaukat came on the Station to receive Bheem Singh where

Chhutmal was also present. Counsel for the applicant further submits that deal of Golden brick was between Bheem Singh and Shaukat and the applicant has nothing to do with that. .

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid submissions on merits and demerits of the case and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

It is, therefore, ordered that applicant Chhutmal S/o Maggan Parsadi shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before that Court as and when called upon to do so during pendency of the trial against him arising out of FIR No.318/2006 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur.

(PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. ummed/


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.