Dismissed

Sandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2016CRLMB/11306/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The accused was charged with abduction, snatching, and other offences. Justice Sharma held that given the nature of the crime and a judgment dismissing bail for a co-accused, this case is not fit for bail at the current stage. Liberty was granted to file a fresh bail application after recording all material witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed. Liberty granted to file fresh bail application after recording statements of all material witnesses.

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

¶2

ORDER

¶3

S . B . ~rirni nal ~i sc. ~ai 1 ~ppl i cati on ~0.11306/2016 sandeep singh vs. state of ~ajasthan

¶4

6.9.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

Mr. N.S. Si karwar for the accused peti tioner/s Mr. is hi ~aj public Prosecutor for State Mr. Rajat ~anjan for the complainant Mr. ~<amal Si ngh, S .I, ~oli ce station vai shali Nagar , 3ai pu r (west) appears i n person

¶7

his bai 1 application has been filed by the accused peti ti oner under secti on 439 ~r . P. C.

¶8

~rief facts of the case are that the complainant lodged an FIR No. 290/2106 at police Station ~ai shali Nagar, 3ai pur (south) for the offence under sections 147, 149, 323, 342, 364, 395 IPC. ring the course of investigation the accused petitioner was arrested. hereafter he moved the bail application before the learned court below, which was dismissed on 1.8.2016. counsel for the accused petitioner has subnii tted that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident, ~nvesti gati on has been completed and the chall an has been fi1ed. counsel has submitted that there is .no role of the petitioner in commissioning of the aforesai d crime. counsel has furthe,r su,bmi tted

¶9

that the only offence made out against the petitioner is under section 323 IPC and not beyond that. counsel has further submitted that the injured has been examined by the doctor after a great lapse of 25 hours and the petitioner has not committed any offence which is punishable under secti or1 364 IpC. Hence, the accused peti ti oner be re1 eased on bai 1 .

¶10

earned PP assisted by the counsel for the complainant and the 1.0 of the case have opposed the bail application and submitted that i nvesti gati on i s pendi ng against other co-accused persons and challan has been filed against them under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. hey have further submitted that as per the FIR, the present accused petitioner with 4-5 other persons on 4.4.2016 at 5:50 P.M after putting the cloth on the mouth of the compl ai nant abducted the compl ai nant i n vehicle number RJ-14-uD-4809 and gave a beating to him and snatched ~s.18,000/and a '~adda' of silver. hey have further submitted that the bail of co--accused hag wan ~ingh has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate ~ench of this Court on 31.8.2016 and the case of the present accused petitioner is on simi 1 ar footings. hey have further submitted that such type of offences are rapidly increasing in the state of ~ajasthan particularly in police Station ~ai shal i Nagar , lai pur . Hence, the bai 1 appl i cation of the accused peti ti oner be rejected. I have heard karned counsel for the

¶11

respective parti es and careful 1 y scanned the enti re material made available to me.

¶12

From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the fact that as per the FIR, the accused petitioner a1 ong-wi th 4-5 other persons on 4.4.2016 at 550 P.M after putting the cloth on the mouth of the complainant abducted himr in vehicle number ~1-14-~~-4809 and gave a beating to him and snatched ~s.18,000/and a '~adda' of silver, bail of co-accused shagwan ~ingh has been dismissed by the Co-ordinate ~ench of this court on 31.8.2016 and the case of the present accused petitioner is on similar footings, such type of offences are rapidly increasing in the state of ~ajasthan parti cul arly at police Station vai shal i Nagar, laipur, at this stage it is not a fit case where indulgence of bail can be granted to the accused petitioner. However, I am in agreement with the observations made by the learned court below in its order dated 1.8.2016, the relevant . portion of which is reproduced as under:

¶13

5 - ~n the result, the bail application is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the accused peti ti oner to move fresh bai 1 appl i cation r- before the trial court after recording the statements of a11 the material witnesses. ~t is also expected from the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible.

Sandeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Singh 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

Radheshyam Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shribhan and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Uma Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dalbir Singh Rana Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jitesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Urmila and Others Vs Surendra Kumar and Others