Allowed

Wasim Khan v. State

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2017CRLA/1473/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1473/2017, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the appellant's appeal against the rejection of his bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., holding that the trial court erred in declining bail. The appellant was ordered released on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellant released on bail via personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each.

Wasim Khan Vs State — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1473 / 2017

¶3

Wasim Khan S/o Makhnat Khan, by caste Musalman, resident of Rahimgarh, Police Station Sitamau, District Mandsaur

¶4

(At present lodged in District Jail, Pratapgarh)

¶5

----Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.L. Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Awasthi, P.P., for the State

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Judgment

¶11

20/09/2017

¶12

Accused-appellant has laid this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘Act of 1989’) to assail impugned order dated 11.09.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Pratapgarh (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) rejecting his bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No.40/2008 of Police Station Pratapgarh. At present, trial in Sessions Case No.06/2010 is under progress before the learned trial Court for offences punishable under Sections 143, 307, 365, 384 IPC.

¶13

It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that investigation in the matter has been completed and most of the

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

witnesses have been examined. It is also submitted by learned counsel that there is no evidence against the appellant that in the commission of offence he fired at victim using fire arm. Learned counsel has further submitted that co-accused who is charged for using fire arm has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeal and submits that learned trial Court in its discretion has rejected the appeal, therefore, no interference is called for.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other materials available on record.

¶18

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial Court erred in declining bail of the appellant, therefore, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to set aside the impugned order.

¶19

Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed, the impugned order passed by learned trial Court is set at naught and it is ordered that accused-appellant, Wasim Khan S/o Makhnat Khan, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2008 Police Station Pratapgarh, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶20

Bharti/363

Wasim Khan v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wasim Khan 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

Sanjay Vs State

Harish and Anr. Vs State and Anr.

Inder Singh Vs State

Hetram Vs Bhanwarlal and Anr.

Hariom and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthn and Ors.

Ramniwas and Anr. Vs State and Anr.