Suresh Vs. State

Suresh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Jodhpur Decided May 29, 2014

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1143842

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1143842
Court: Rajasthan Jodhpur High Court
Decided On: May 29, 2014
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....to do so, the order of granting bail would automatically deemed to be cancelled. the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while granting bail, the court 2 cannot impose such condition because the same is illegal and, therefore, the said condition may be deleted. heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. from the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that before the trial court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready to deposit due amount, however, for that purpose he is required to be released on bail and he will pay the due amount to the victim in installments. the learned trial court after taking into consideration the said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has granted bail to him while observing that if the petitioner will remain in jail, he will not be able to pay the maintenance to her wife and looking to this situation only, the benefit of bail has been extended to the petitioner. it is also noticed that the learned trial court has imposed the condition of paying 25% of the due amount within a period of 45 days and further 25% of due amount within a period of 90 days as per the statement made by learned 3 counsel for the petitioner. when the petitioner himself has agreed before the court below to pay due amount of maintenance to the victim and for that purpose only, he was released on bail, then in such circumstances, this court does not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby the learned trial court has imposed the condition of paying 25% of the due maintenance amount within 45 days and further 25% of the due maintenance amount within a period of 90 days. in view of above discussion, this court does not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. the same is hereby dismissed. the stay petition is also dismissed. [vijay bishnoi].,j. babulal/ 99

Full Judgment

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC.

PETITION NO.1373/2014 Suresh versus State of Rajasthan Date of order : 29.05.2014 PRESENT HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI Mr.Vijay Singh Choudhary for petitioner.

Mr.Vikram Rajpurohit, Public Prosecutor.

BY THE COURT: This criminal misc.

petition has been preferred against the order dated 30.4.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court') whereby the trial court, while allowing bail application of the petitioner, has ordered for release of the petitioner on bail, however, has imposed a condition that the petitioner would pay 25% of due maintenance amount within a period of 45 days and another 25% of due amount within a period of 90 days to the victim and if he fails to do so, the order of granting bail would automatically deemed to be cancelled.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that while granting bail, the Court 2 cannot impose such condition because the same is illegal and, therefore, the said condition may be deleted.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

From the perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that before the trial court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is ready to deposit due amount, however, for that purpose he is required to be released on bail and he will pay the due amount to the victim in installments.

The learned trial court after taking into consideration the said arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has granted bail to him while observing that if the petitioner will remain in jail, he will not be able to pay the maintenance to her wife and looking to this situation only, the benefit of bail has been extended to the petitioner.

It is also noticed that the learned trial court has imposed the condition of paying 25% of the due amount within a period of 45 days and further 25% of due amount within a period of 90 days as per the statement made by learned 3 counsel for the petitioner.

When the petitioner himself has agreed before the court below to pay due amount of maintenance to the victim and for that purpose only, he was released on bail, then in such circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order whereby the learned trial court has imposed the condition of paying 25% of the due maintenance amount within 45 days and further 25% of the due maintenance amount within a period of 90 days.

In view of above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this criminal misc.

petition.

The same is hereby dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

[VIJAY BISHNOI].,J.

Babulal/ 99

Same Court & Year Rajasthan Jodhpur · 2014 Same Parties Suresh vs State Same Subject Criminal