Single judge bench dismissed an bail application in a case involving offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 IPC, finding sufficient prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement and the gravity of charges.
Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR O R D E R
S.B.Criminal Misc.Third Bail Application No.15172/2015 (Kushal Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan)
Date of Order :::::
15.12.2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
Mr.Pankaj Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.Anil Yadav,Public Prosecutor for State.
The accused-petitioner has moved this third application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.362/2013 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur for the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 201 IPC. The first application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by the High Court on merit by a reasoned order dated 4.8.2014 whereas the second application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.05.2015. It is to be noted that at the time of dismissal of second application statements of four prosecution witnesses including that of complainant-father of the deceased and Shri Banwari Yadav, brother of the deceased, were already recorded by the trial Court. The present application has mainly been filed on the ground that subsequent thereto statements of nine more material prosecution witnesses have been recorded by the trial Court and some of them have not supported the prosecution case and also on the ground of period of custody of the petitioner.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the evidence collected during investigation which has been placed on
2
record by way of copy of the charge-sheet and more particularly in view of the statements of the prosecution witnesses so far recorded during the course of trial, I prima facie found that there is sufficient evidence available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the incident and, therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, but without expressing any final opinion on the merit and demerit of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the third application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is, hereby, dismissed.
(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J
teekam S.No.57
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
Teekam Khanchandani Private Secretary
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be granted given the gravity of the offences and prima facie evidence of involvement.
Whether the recording of additional witness statements or duration of custody warrants bail in this third application.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kushal Yadav
State of Rajasthan
PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
