Dismissed

Kanta Prasad Mishra v. Vijay Katiyar

Rajasthan HC14 Oct 2015CRLMB/538/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Criminal Misc. Application seeking to cancel bail granted under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the Court observed that despite the FSL report opining disputes documents were not signed by the complainants, the bail application was dismissed as meritless because the original bail order's reasons and the nature of allegations did not justify cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The application for cancellation of bail was dismissed.

Kanta Prasad Mishra Vs Vijay Katiyar — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B.Criminal Misc.(Cancellation of Bail) Application No.538/2015 (Kanta Prasad Mishra (Sharma) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶5

Date of Order ::::: 14.10.2015

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL

¶7

Mr.Mahesh Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr.Jitendra Shrimali,Public Prosecutor for State. Mr.Ambika Desai and Mr.Anurag Kulshreshtha, for the accused-respondent. Mr.Prem Dan Singh, ACP, PS Sodala, Jaipur (South).

¶8

The complainant-petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer to cancel the order of bail dated 15.12.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur in Criminal Misc.Bail Appllication No.307/2014 whereby the learned Court below granted bail to the accused-respondent under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.212/2013 registered at Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 472, 381 read with Section 120-B IPC. The main ground which has been pleaded in favour of the present application is that while granting benefit of bail to the respondent learned Court below failed to take into consideration certain material facts and more particularly FSL report dated 20.10.2014 and also took into consideration certain irrelevant facts. As per FSL report it has been opined that the disputed documents do not bear the signature of the complainant and his wife.

¶9

On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available on record for my perusal as well as the evidence collected during investigation which was

¶10

¶11

produced before me by way of case diary, although it appears that while granting benefit of bail to the respondent bail learned Court below failed to take into consideration certain relevant facts including the FSL report and also took into consideration certain irrelevant facts, but in view of the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons recorded by the learned Court below in support of the impugned order and the nature of allegations made, I do not find it a fit case in which this Court while exercising its discretionary power conferred upon it under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. must cancel the impugned order.

¶12

Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. being meritless is, hereby, dismissed.

¶13

(PRASHANT KUMAR AGARWAL), J

¶14

teekam Reserved order.

¶15

“All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.”

¶16

Teekam Khanchandani Private Secretary

Kanta Prasad Mishra v. Vijay Katiyar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanta Prasad Mishra v. Vijay Katiyar

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

Shailesh @ Amin Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Babloo Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Chaman Koli and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Satish Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Narendra Maheriya Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Naveen Saraswat Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.