Dismissed

State v. Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa

Rajasthan HC13 Sept 2018CRLBC/17/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Upon the request of the petitioner under Section 439(2) CrPC to cancel bail granted to the respondent, the Court examined allegations of liberty misuse. Finding that subsequent cases were registered anterior to the bail order, the Court held that the petitioner had not made out a case for cancellation and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of bail rejected.

State Vs Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation No. 17/2018

State Of Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa Son Of Shri Om Singh, By Caste Rajput Resident Of Gali No. 4, In Front Of Municipal Corporation, Hanuman Hattha, Bikaner.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor. For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Lodha for Mr. Vineet Jain.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA

¶10

Order

¶11

13/09/2018

¶12

Heard learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondent on this application under Section 439(2) for cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondent vide order dated 20.09.2017.

¶13

The Court, while considering the bail plea of respondent in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.8676/2017, in relation to FIR No.227/2017 of Police Station Naya Shahar, District Bikaner, for offence under Sections 336, 352 & 120-B IPC read with Sections 3/25 & 27 of the Arms Act, released him on bail.

¶14

Precisely, learned Public Prosecutor has made an attempt to impress upon the Court that accused-respondent, after grant of bail, has misused his liberty. Learned Public Prosecutor has also

¶15

(2 of 2)

¶16

[CRLBC-17/2018]

¶17

referred to the order passed by Division Bench in D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No.20/2017, decided on 04.04.2017.

¶18

Upon examining the cases registered against accusedrespondent after order dated 04.04.2017, In my view the aforesaid cases were registered anterior to the bail order passed by this Court. The insinuation made by State that accusedrespondent has misused his liberty is not tenable. So called liberty was granted to the State by the Division Bench, while disposing of the habeas corpus petition, in respect of those cases, wherein trial Court has granted bail to the respondent anterior to order dated 04.04.2017.

¶19

In view thereof, no case for cancellation of bail within the four corners of Sub-section(2) of Section 439 is made out.

¶20

Consequently, the application for cancellation of bail is hereby rejected.

¶21

Twinkle Singh/115

State v. Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State v. Bhupendra Singh @ Bhoopsa

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

Mishri Lal Vs Safi Mohd. and Anr.

Lrs of Asha Rani Vs Sarswati Devi

Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Vs Radha

Sunil Vs State

Ashok @ Sonu Vs State

Pukhraj Soni Vs Surendra Singh Mehta and Anr.