Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32261 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. VINOD PATHENA @ PAHALWAN S/O TEJ SINGH

CRLBC/158/2024 · 2025-02-24

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:9304] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 158/2024 State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Petitioner Versus Vinod Pathena @ Pahalwan S/o Tej Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Pathena, Ps Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Saini, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Katela HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/02/2025 This application has been filed on behalf of petitioner State of Rajasthan seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused respondent by effect of order dated 14.08.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9650/2024. On 14.08.2024, while accepting the bail application of the accused respondent, two conditions were imposed upon him i.e., (1) he shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court and (2) he shall mark his presence in the concerned Police Station on 1st Monday of every month, till trial is concluded. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that in October, 2024, he did not mark his presence in the local police station and thus, he flouted the directions and conditions imposed upon him. He however, submits that in September, 2024, he marked his presence in the local police station. [2025:RJ-JP:9304] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-158/2024] Learned counsel for the accused respondent submits that due to some unavoidable circumstances, the accused respondent failed to mark his presence in October 2024. He submits that prior to that, the accused respondent appeared before the local police station and henceforth, he will mark his presence in the local police station and obey both the conditions/directions. After hearing submissions advanced by both the sides and considering the material available on record as also the fact that the respondent failed to mark his presence for the first time in the month of October, 2024 and prior to that, in September, 2024, he appeared before the local police station, I am not inclined to accept the instant bail cancellation application, which is dismissed as such. Henceforth, the accused respondent shall regularly mark his presence before the local police station without any default as also shall not involve in similar offence, in terms of the order dated 14.08.2024. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752