Dismissed

Jagdish v. State

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2015CRLMB/1967/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Nirmaljit Kaur discharged_sec_ the second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court found nothing to distinguish the petitioner's case from a co-accused whose similar fourth bail application was recently dismissed, rejecting arguments based on witness statements and RTI data. Disposition: dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Petitioner remanded to custody.

Jagdish Vs State — Narcotics (NDPS) | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. CR. MISC. II BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1967/2015 (Jagdish vs. State of Rajasthan)

¶5

Date of Order : : 09.04.2015

¶6

HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR

¶7

Mr. Mukesh Rajpurohit, for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, Public Prosecutor, for the State.

¶8

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 34/2012, Police Station Chitalwana, district Jalore for the offence under Section 8/15 of the NDPS Act.

¶9

This is second bail application. The same has been filed on the ground that the statements of the concerned officers Rajendra and Ram Pratap have been recorded. It is stated that from the crossexamination it appears that the petitioner was never seen or known by Rajendra or Ram Pratap. Thus, the question of being recognized by them while running away does not arise. However, the examination-in-chief shows that the petitioner was known earlier to the police officers as he used to visit the police station now and then.

¶10

The second argument is that as per the information provided in pursuance to the application dated 13.08.2013 under the Right to Information Act, the said vehicle was brought by Rajendra and Ram Pratap themselves to the police station. Thus, the story stands demolished by the same. As of now, it is not clear whether

¶11

[ 2 ]

¶12

the vehicle mentioned in the document is the same vehicle which is a subject matter of the FIR or some other vehicle. Moreover, the authenticity of these documents is subject matter of the trial. This is second bail application. Moreover, the fourth bail application of the co-accused Ghewar Ram, who is similarly situated, was dismissed on 22.01.2015. This Court finds nothing to distinguish the case of the present petitioner to that of co-accused Ghewar Ram.

¶13

Dismissed accordingly.

¶14

(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.

¶15

Anil/19

Jagdish v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Devi Vs Institute of Adv. Studies in Ed. and Anr.

Nathu Mohd. Vs Raj. Civil Services Appellat and Ors.

Miss Rekha Vs the State of Raj. and Ors.

Bhera Ram Vs State

Ram Lal Vs State

Atul and Ors. Vs State