Allowed

Ummar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC5 Oct 2016CRLMB/10254/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur, on a bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C., considered an order passed on 12.08.2016 granting interim anticipatory bail. The court noted the petitioner's version differed from the prosecution's regarding the weapon used. Since the petitioner had joined investigation, the interim bail was made absolute without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The interim anticipatory bail granted via order dated 12.08.2016 is made absolute; petition disposed of.

Ummar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

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

¶2

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.10254/2016

¶3

Ummar S/o Ise Khan, by Caste Mev, R/o Village Khedlinanu, Police Station Jurhera, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) V/s.

¶4

State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶5

Date of Order: 05-10-2016

¶6

HONBLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA, J.

¶7

¶8

Mr. Azad Ahmed, for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Godara, P.P. for the State.

¶9

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. No 54/2016 registered at Police Station, Jurhera, Distt. Bharatpur for offences under Sections 147, 323, 341, 336, 324, 325, 326 & 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

On 12.08.2016 following order was passed by this

¶12

court:-

¶13

"Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case of version and cross-version.

¶14

List again on 05.10.2016. In the meantime, in the event of arrest, petitioner be released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the arresting Officer. Petitioner shall abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C."

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the FIR, petitioner had inflicted injury on the head of Asif with a stick. However, as per the medical opinion, injury on the parietal region of Asif was with a sharped edged weapon. Later petitioner was attributed an injury on the head of Aslam. As per the medical opinion, injuries on the occipital region of injured Aslam were with a sharped edged weapon whereas, petitioner was allegedly armed with a stick at the time of occurrence.

¶16

Learned State Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has joined investigation.

¶17

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, interim bail granted by this Court to the petitioner vide order dated 12.08.2016, is made absolute.

¶18

Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

(SABINA),J.

¶20

Sudha/04

Ummar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Deepak Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Radhey Shyam Vs Subhash Chand Meena and Others

Aslam Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Balveer Kaur and Others

Chetraj Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajwanti Devi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp