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

1998 Supreme(Raj) 677

B.J.SHETHNA
Pappu @ Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vinod Bhadu, for Petitioner S.K. Vyas, P.P.

Honble SHETHNA, J.–Looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners accused, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail because the allegation against them is that they have assaulted public servants for which the offences have been registered against them under Sections 332, 353, 341, 34 IPC. Court cannot take such matter lightly and grant anticipatory bail. The way in which and the manner in which the offence is alleged to have been committed is sufficient to deny the bail as this type of tendency of assaulting public servants is increasing day by day.

(2). The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 1988 RCC 431 has no application to the facts of this case.

(3). In view of the above, this bail application is dismissed.

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