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

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
UMA SHANKER VYAS, J.
Gangaram and others - Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan and others - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13041 of 2023
Decided on : 02-11-2023

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Hardev Singh with Mr. Ramjilal Gujar, Mr. Babulal Prajapat and Mr. Sanjay Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Atul Sharma, P.P. and Mr. Jitendra Choudhary for Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocates.

A court can grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by considering the duration of judicial custody and potential trial delays, without addressing case merits.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Petitioners seek regular bail in FIR No.131/2023 for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 & 307 read with Section 34 IPC. Petitioners claim innocence, asserting false implication and the case being one of version and cross-version. The application is opposed by the State and complainants. The Court, considering the circumstances, allows the bail application, deeming it just and proper. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Bail - The court considers the period of judicial custody and the likely delay in trial as factors justifying the grant of bail without expressing a view on case merits. (Paras 2-4)

Table of Content
1. bail application details and charges. (Para 1)
2. argument for innocence and need for bail. (Para 2)
3. opposition to bail application. (Para 3)
4. court's consideration for granting bail. (Para 4)
5. order for bail with conditions. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Uma Shanker Vyas, J. - This bail application has been filed by petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in FIR No.131/2023 registered at Police Station Borada, District Kekdi for the offence(s) under Section(s) 143, 323, 341 & 307 read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that accused-petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that it a case of version and cross-version. He also submits that accused-petitioners have been in judicial custody since long and the conclusion of the trial will take long time, hence petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as well as the learned counsel for complainant(s) have opposed the bail application.

4. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge petitioners on bail.

5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioners 1.Gangaram S/o Kanaram & 2.Manu @ Dhanraj S/o Ramkaran shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation that petitioners shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

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 Back to top