Research › Search › Judgment
High Court of Rajasthan · body
2025 DAILYLAW 39409 (RAJ)
RAMESH CHAND CHANDNA SON OF SHRI MANGILAL v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/2851/2025 · 2025-05-15
Praveer Bhatnagar
body2025
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39409 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 39409 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:20521] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2851/2025
1. Ramesh Chand Chandna Son Of Shri Mangilal, Resident Of Shyopuriya Ki Bavdi, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi Rajasthan. 2. Arvind Son Of Prahlad, Resident Of Gurjar Basti, Gendoli Kalan, Police Station Gendoli, District Bundi (Raj). 3. Neeraj Kumar Son Of Prahlad, Resident Of Gurjar Basti, Gendoli Kalan, Police Station Gendoli, District Bundi (Raj). 4. Abhay @ Chintu Son Of Ramesh, Resident Of Nainwa Road, Shyopuriya Ki Bavdi, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Kanhaiya Lal Son Of Shri Chatra, Resident Of Gulkhedi, At Present R/o Khatkad, Police Station Raithal, District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Ajay Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 15/05/2025 ;kphx.k }kjk /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk ds varxZr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 26@2025 fnukad 21-02-2025 iqfyl Fkkuk& jk;Fky] ftyk& cwanh vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 352] 351¼2½] 351¼3½] 3¼5½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk o /kkjk 3¼1½¼r½] 3¼1½¼s½ vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼u`'kalrk fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e esa i{kdjksa ds e/; ijLij gq, jkthukek izn'kZ 3 ds vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ o mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks jn~n o vikLr djus dk vuqrks"k pkgk gSA
[2025:RJ-JP:20521] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2851/2025] fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k dk rdZ gS fd ;kphx.k ,oa ifjoknh ¼izR;FkhZ la[;k 2½ ds e/; ijLij jkthuke gks x;k gS ,oa bl lanHkZ esa ifjoknh Jh dgSU;k yky } kjk ,d 'kiFk i= fnukafdr 04-03-2025 dk fu"ikfnr fd;k gS tks fd izn'kZ 3 ds :i esa ;kfpdk ds lkFk layXu gSA vr% jkthukek ds vk/kkj ij mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ o mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh dks jn~n o vikLr fd;k tk,A izR;FkhZ la[;k 2 dh vksj ls vf/koDrk Jh vt; flag mifLFkr gSa vkSj muds } kjk bl rF; dks Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd i{kdjksa ds e/; ijLij jkthukek gks x;k gS vkSj ;fj ;kphx.k ds fo#) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ o mlls mn~Hkwr leLr dk;Zokgh jn~nh o vikLr dh tkrh gSa rks mUgsa dksbZ vkifRr ugha gSA cgl lquh xbZA i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i{kdkjksa ds e/; fookn vkilh fookn gS vkSj ml fookn }kjk o`gn lekt ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugh iM+rk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds U;kf;d n`"Vkar Gian Singh Vs.
State of Punjab [(2012) 10 SCC 303] rFkk led{k ihB }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d fu.kZ; Haneef Khan v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5913@2022 fnukad 15-03-2024 rFkk Dhanraj/ Vishal v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5913/2022 fnukad 15-03-2024 esa izfrikfnr fl)karksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, izLrqr izdj.k esa ;kphx.k ds fo#) iathc) izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 26@2025 iqfyl Fkkuk& jk;Fky] ftyk& cwanh vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 352] 351¼2½] 351¼3½] 3¼5½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk o /kkjk 3¼1½¼r½] 3¼1½¼s½ vuwlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ¼u`'kalrk fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mDr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ls mn~Hkwr leLr vkijkf/kd dk;Zokgh dks Hkh mijksDr vuqlkj jn~n o vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA lHkh yafcr izkFkZuk&i=ksa dks Hkh mijksDr vuqlkj fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J RAMESHWAR PRASHAD /60