Jogendra vs. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp

Held

The Court considered the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioners and deemed it proper to allow the bail applications. The reasoning appears to be based on the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, particularly the claim of false implication by Jogendra due to his prior complaint against police personnel, and the involvement of Suresh and Bhagwati Prasad in a purchase for a marriage with GST payment, coupled with their period of custody and assertion that they are not required for further investigation. The Court did not delve into the merits of the FIR allegations but found sufficient grounds to grant bail. The operative direction is to release the accused-petitioners on bail, subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each, with the stipulation to appear before the trial court and any transferred court on all subsequent dates and when called upon.

Facts

The petitioners, Jogendra, Suresh, and Bhagwati Prasad, have filed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. FIR No. 143/2018 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 427, 435 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act. The petitioner Jogendra claims to be a journalist who had filed a complaint against police personnel, alleging false implication. For Suresh and Bhagwati Prasad, it is contended that they were involved in purchasing goods for a marriage and have produced a bill showing GST payment. They claim to have been falsely implicated and have been in custody since April 2018, stating they are not required for further investigation.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail considering the allegations under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 427, 435 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act? (Question of law and fact) Contentions of the Petitioner: - Petitioner Jogendra is a journalist who had filed a complaint against police personnel, suggesting false implication in the present case. - Petitioners Suresh and Bhagwati Prasad were involved in purchasing goods for a marriage, supported by a purchase bill showing GST payment, and claim false implication. - The petitioners have been in custody since April 2018 and are not required for further investigation. Contentions of the Respondent (State of Rajasthan): - The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.