Dismissed

Ramvati and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC22 Jan 2016CRLMB/917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed a second bail application filed against an order dated 13.1.2016 of the Sessions Judge, Dholpur. The High Court held it was not just and proper to grant bail given the facts and the trial court's findings, directing the trial court to conclude the trial within three months.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; trial court directed to complete trial within three months.

Ramvati and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH O R D E R

¶2

S.B.CRIMINAL MISC. II BAIL APPL. NO. 917/2016 (RAMVATI AND ANR. Vs. State)

¶3

DATE OF ORDER :::::

¶4

22.1.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

Mr.Anil Jain, for the petitioner/s. Ms.Meenakshi Pareek, Public Prosecutor for State.

¶7

This second bail application has been filed against the order dated 13.1.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur.

¶8

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.105/2015 was registered at P.S. Dihauli, Distt. Dholpur for the offences mentioned therein. Investigation was commenced, and during the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested. They moved the bail application before the trial court, who vide order dated 4.9.2015 dismissed the bail application. Thereafter the petitioner moved earlier bail application before this court, that too was dismissed vide order dated 5.11.2015 with liberty to move bail application before trial court after recording the statements of the material witnesses. After recording the statements of material witnesses, the petitioner again moved bail application before the trial court, but same was also dismissed vide order dated 13.1.2016. Hence this second bail application has been filed.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioners have not committed any offence, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence against the

¶10

petitioners to connect them with the alleged crime. It is also contended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since long, trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the petitioners should be enlarged on bail.

¶11

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and stated that trial is likely to be completed and only few statements of material witnesses are yet to be recorded including the main accused persons. Therefore, at this stage, petitioners should not be released on bail.

¶12

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the order dated 13.1.2016.

¶13

Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, and after going through the findings arrived at by the trial court in the impugned order dated 13.1.2016, I do not think it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶14

Accordingly, this second bail application is hereby dismissed. However, it is expected of the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months, if possible.

¶15

(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J.

¶16

Sandeep/-15

¶17

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being e-mailed. SANDEEP RAWAT,Sr.P.A.s

Ramvati and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvati and Anr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vidhya Devi Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Balkishan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Sunita Vs Prakash

Damodar and Others Vs Girraj and Others

Smt Preeti Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Guddi Devi Saini Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp