CRLMP / 7618 / 2024 (VEDPRAKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the ld. ASJ, Sri Doongargarh, Churu dismissing the revision and upheld the cognizance passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to taken so mechanically. Summoning the pet. without effecting service of summons does not stand justification Directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the pet. do not stand the judicial scrutiny. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed.
2
CRLMP / 7541 / 2024 (AMIT KUMAR DAVE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the Ld. ACJM No.2, Jalore for dishonour of a cheque. HELD: Directions issued against the sureties u/s 446 CrPC has serious procedural fallacy comimitted by magistrates and cannot be sustained. Presence of an accused particularly in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semicriminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed.
3
CRLMP / 7493 / 2024 (CHALAKDAN CHARAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner aggrieved of order passed by ld. ASJ, Jodhpur dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken so mechanically. Summoning the petitioner without effecting service of summons or bailable warrants, by directly issuing arrest warrants on a protest petition does not stand to justification in this case. Orders modified i.e. arrest warrant converted to bailable warrant. Petition disposed.
4
CRLW / 2177 / 2024 (AMAR SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking his interim bail for 3 months on medical grounds of his wife. Held: Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, also encompasses right to live with dignity as a human being which necessary entails to act as a good husband in terms of the marital wows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals. The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary bail for a period of 60 days. Petition allowed.
5
CRLW / 2276 / 2024 (YUDHISHTER SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Petitioner seeking interim bail for his father to enable him to attend his own marriage. HELD: Art. 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and also encompasses the right to dignity i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son. Such a right cannot and ought not be curtailed. Nature of prosecution evidence is documentary, which has been seized, and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same. Petition allowed.
1
CRLAS / 2203 / 2024 (MOHH. ISRAR ALIAS KALLU S/O MOHD. MUAK VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024 Appellant filed appeal under section 14A of the SC/ST Act, 1989 for offences u/s 115, 342, 343, 364, 302, 201, 120B, 37 I.P.C. and u/s 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) SC/ST Act. HELD: Accused have umpteen number of criminal antecedents registered against him, and it prima facie appears that they are a threat to the society. For granting of bail in cases under SC/ST Act, period of incarceration cannot be the sole ground, it has to be considered on the gravity and nature of the offence. Appeal dismissed.
2
CW / 16380 / 2024 (NEERAJ SAXENA S/O SH. M.L. SAXENA VS RAJASTHAN ELECTRONICS AND INSTRUMENTS LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/10/2024 Whether the petitioner can be deprived of travelling abroad because of the pendency of departmental enquiry against him? HELD: Departmental Inquiry cannot be ground to deny permission to the pet. to travel abroad. Such action amounts to violation of Art. 21 of the Constitution. Paramount consideration should be given to the condition imposed upon the person who has been granted permission to go abroad, to ensure that they do not flea from the enquiry. Petition disposed.
3
CW / 5334 / 2011 (DINESH INANI AND ANR VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of orders dated 08.07.2009 and 24.02.2011 imposing the penalty and dismissing the revision. HELD: During the inspection it was found that the gravel excavated from the khatedari land of the pet. was used for constructing a road to the hotel owned by the pet. The penalty order is a non-speaking order and reply of the pet. has brushed aside by stating it to be not satisfactory. The revisional authority had not dealt with the contentions. Petition allowed.
4
CRLA / 5 / 1992 (SHIV PRAKASH, S/O SHRI JAGAN NATH VS STATE OF) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024 Appellants aggrieved by judgment dated 18.12.1991 qua which he was convicted u/s 376 IPC r/w 511 IPC. HELD: All elements of attempt to rape constituted and if the penetration attempt would have been successful even partially, it would fall within the definition of “Rape” u/s 375 IPC. Deliberated actions of the appellants identified as he calls the minor-victim in room and pushed his genitals into hers. Appeal dismissed, order of conviction upheld.
5
CW / 4109 / 2015 (STATE OF RAJ VS SHRI DEV LALANDORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024 Petitioner seeking quashing of orders passed by the Board of Revenue and the Add. Collector. HELD: There is no explanation given by the petitioner for not challenging the order of the Board for seven years. The writ petition is hit by delay and latches. And, Inspite of the land having been measured twice and the conclusion arrived was same, yet the factual issue is being raised in the writ petition that the measurement was not proper. Petition dismissed.
