SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
RAHUL PRASAD SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
CRL.M.A. 10459/2015 (Delay in re-filing)
The delay in re-filing is condoned.
CRL.M.A. 10460/2015 (Exemption)
Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.
The application is disposed of accordingly.
BAIL APPLN. 1458/2015
1. The present is an application under Section 439 CrPC, 1973 for grant of regular bail in FIR No.218/2012 under Section 302/392/394/411/120B/34 IPC registered at Police Station-Timar Pur.
2. The accused has been in judicial custody since 03.10.2012 and only 17 witnesses out of the total of 41 witnesses have been examined during the trial. It is also noticed that two public witnesses are yet to be examined.
3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states that he has been implicated in the present case on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement and that there is no direct or indirect evidence against the applicant. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that the IO in the subject case has not produced any cogent material to show that he enquired about the commission of the subject offence from the neighbours of the deceased victim. It is also urged on behalf of counsel for the applicant that the fingerprints
Puran v. Rambilas (2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124
State of U.P. Through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1977
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688
Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41 : AIR 1978 SC 179
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.