The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail petition without expressing an opinion on merits, subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, due to lack of eyewitness support for the prosecution case during trial.
Petitioners admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(1 of 1 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 2nd BAIL APPLICATION NO. 14827/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
----Respondent
__________________________________________ For Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar For Respondent : Mr. R.S. Raghav, P.P.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Judgment
17/12/2018
Petitioners have filed this 2nd petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No.338/2018 registered at Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, during trial. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he had not witnessed the occurrence.
Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioners be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Trial Court.
(SABINA)J.
Mohita/7
Bali @ Bal Kishan
Jasram
State of Rajasthan
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
