Allowed

Maharaj Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC22 Sept 2017CRLMB/12661/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants regular bail to petitioner No.1 and No.3 in a criminal case. Bail for petitioner No.2 was withdrawn mid-hearing. The court held that continuous detention of the remaining petitioners was not warranted given the length of the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners No.1 and No.3 released on bail pending trial to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Maharaj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 12661 / 2017

¶3

Maharaj Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Tasai, PS Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶4

Prakash Singh S/o Raghuveer Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Tasai, PS Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶5

Mahesh S/o Ram Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Tasai, PS Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan Through PP.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, P.P. for the State Mr. Aatish Jain, for the complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶12

Order

¶13

22/09/2017

¶14

Present application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of a regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.270/2017, registered at Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 324, 326 and 307 IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the injury falling within the ambit of Section 307 IPC is attributed to Prakash Singh, petitioner No.2.

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-12661/2017]

¶18

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the present bail application qua Prakash Singh, petitioner No.2, be dismissed as withdrawn.

¶19

Ordered accordingly.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant are in agreement that so far petitioner No.1 Maharaj Singh and petitioner No.3 Mahesh are concerned, injury attributed to them will not substantively fall within the ambit of Section 307 IPC.

¶21

In view of statement made above, considering the nature of allegations leveled against the petitioners No.1 and 3, and the fact that period of police remand is already over and they are in judicial custody and trial will take a long time to conclude, this court is of the view that continuous detention of the petitioner as an under trial is not warranted.

¶22

Consequently, the present application is accepted and the petitioners No.1 Maharaj Singh and petitioner No.3 Mahesh are ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the trial, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

¶23

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

¶24

Govind/

Maharaj Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaj Singh and Ors. 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

Om Prakash Meena Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Mubarik Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jitendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Satyen Rai@Teetu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Dinesh Chand Sharma Vs J D a and Anr.

Natvar@Nattu Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp