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

2009 Supreme(HP) 953

KULDIP SINGH
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rakesh Jaswal , Advocate. For the Respondent:Mr. R.P.Singh, Asstt. Advocate General.

JUDGMENT

Kuldip Singh, J.(Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 176 of 2009 dated 19.6.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur, District Kangra under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC. Status report has been filed.

2. Heard and perused the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in FIR No. 176 of 2009 dated 19.6.2009 registered at Police Station, Palampur. The investigation in the case is over and nothing incriminating is required to be recovered from the petitioner. The investigating agency does not require the personal custody of the petitioner. The petitioner is innocent and he has committed no offence. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in case he is released on bail. The petitioner had earlier filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (I) Kangra at Dharamshala on 25.8.2009.

3. The learned Assistant Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Kumar had committed serious offence under Section 376(2) (g), 354 IPC. The prosecutrix in the case is a fo



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