MUKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2025-01-13. MUKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2025:RJ-JD:2127] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14437/2024 1. Meghasingh S/o Sh. Shyamlal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jaato Ka Bas, Karwar, P. s. Karwar, Jodhpur East. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur) 2. Krishn Kumar S/o Sh. Punna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jaato Ka Bas, Karwar, P. s. Karwar, Jodhpur East. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14438/2024 1. Mukesh S/o Devaram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Nagana, P. s. Mandali, Dist Barmer At Present Residents Of Riico Industry , P. s. Boranada, Jodhpur (Lodged In Central Jail , Jodhpur) 2. Jitendra S/o Devaram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Nagana, P. s. Mandali, Dist Barmer At Present Residents Of Riico Industry , P. s.
Boranada, Jodhpur (Lodged In Central Jail , Jodhpur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwaru Ram Mr. Shrawan Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order 13/01/2025 These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with [2025:RJ-JD:2127] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14437/2024] F. I. R. No. 540/2024 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur City East, for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(6), 317(2)(5), 318(4), 61(2)(b) of BNS. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the present petitioners is of committing economic offences of illegally sending and converting money obtained by defrauding people from INR to USDT (Tether). Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the investigation against the petitioners has already been concluded and the challan against them has already been filed by the investigating agency before the competent criminal Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the investigation against the petitioners has already been concluded and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the remaining material prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice or tampering with the evidence, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on [2025:RJ-JD:2127] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14437/2024] merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Meghasingh S/o Sh. Shyamlal, (2) Krishn Kumar S/o Sh. Punna Ram, (3) Mukesh S/o Devaram and (4) Jitendra S/o Devaramand arrested in connection with F. I. R. No.
540/2024 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur City East, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same. A copy of this order be placed in each file. (KULDEEP MATHUR),J 203-204 divya/-
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.