SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Raj) 1743

P.K. LOHRA
Amarpreet Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Pradeep Shah, Advocate, for Appellant; S.K. Vyas, AAG, for Respondent

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court granted the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 based on substantial change in circumstances, including key witnesses turning hostile. (!) - The change in circumstances referenced specifically includes statements of mother and father of the deceased, and the real brother turning hostile, affecting the prosecution's position. (!) - The court refrained from commenting on the merits of the case but accepted the change in circumstances as a basis to allow bail. (!) - The accused-petitioner Amarpreet Singh was ordered to be released on bail with specified bond conditions. (!) - First bail application was dismissed earlier, with liberty to renew after recording statements of parents of the deceased. (!) - The decision did not express final determination on merits but relied on material changes in circumstances. (!)

What is the standard for granting bail on a second application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of a substantial change in circumstances?

What is the role of statements of key witnesses turning hostile in altering the circumstances for bail?

What are the conditions under which the High Court may allow a second bail application despite prior dismissal?


JUDGMENT

P.K. Lohra, J. - Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 498A, 304B and in alternative Section 302 IPC in Sessions Case No.20/2017, pending before Special Judge, Women Atrocities and Dowry Cases, Sri Ganganagar (for short, 'learned trial Court'). The aforementioned criminal case is founded on FIR No.43/2017, registered at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

2. At the behest of petitioner, first bail application bearing No.6489/2017 was dismissed as not pressed on 10.08.2017 with liberty to renew the prayer afresh after recording statements of parents of deceased.

3. Arguing on this second bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Shah, that after rejection of first bail application, there is substantial change in the circumstances inasmuch as statements of mother and father of deceased have been recorded during trial. It is also argued by learned counsel that PW1 Kundan Singh, father of the deceased, has not supported prosecution case by turning hostile. Learned counsel has further submitted that PW2 Paramjeet Kaur, mother of deceased-Amande

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top