Allowed

Pushpendra v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC12 Jul 2017CRLMB/7812/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bail application was allowed after the Court found that the trial had remained pending for four years despite prior directions, with only 22 out of 49 witnesses examined. Despite opposition from the Prosecution regarding the gravity of charges, the Court permitted release on bail.

What did the court decide?

Accused-appellant released on bail in FIR No.312/2013 on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of like amount.

Pushpendra Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail No. 7812 / 2017

¶3

Pushpendra Son of Sh. Suraj, by Caste Brahmin, R/o Village Manota Kalan, Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur (rajasthan) (presently Undergoing Imprisonment At Jail, Deeg)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajneesh Gupta

¶9

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rishiraj Singh, Public Prosecutor

¶10

Mr.Arvind Kumar Mr.Nikil Sharma

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI Judgment

¶12

12/07/2017

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the case.

¶14

It is stated that despite direction of this Court, trial has not been completed despite expiry of the period of six months from the date of dismissal of second bail application. In view of the above, the accused-applicant may be enlarged on bail, as he is behind bars for last four years and trial is likely to take time. It is for the reason that only 22 witnesses have been examined out of 49.The main allegation is otherwise against Santosh.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed this bail application. It is stated that

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

[CRLMB-7812/2017]

¶18

Santosh and the present accused-applicant are the main accused as both of them opened fire. The fire opened by Santosh caused

¶19

injury on the chest of deceased, whereas, fire opened by the accused-applicant caused injury on palm of the deceased thus looking to the aforesaid, accused-applicant may not be enlarged on bail.

¶20

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, which may otherwise affect outcome of the trial, I am of the view that accused-applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-applicant, namely, Pushpendra S/o Shri Suraj be released on bail in FIR No.312/2013 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302 IPC provided, she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- together with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(MN BHANDARI) J.

¶23

Preeti, PA/14

Pushpendra v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpendra v. State of Rajasthan through P P

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

Aslam Khan Vs Nanak Chand Vashishth

Rishi Lal Chhabara Vs Prem Kumar Mehta

Ramlal Punia and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Dharampal Gurjar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Poonam Khandelwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Yashwant Singh Vs M D Rural Industrial andANR