Sunil v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In a bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan refused bail due to material progress in the trial with thirteen prosecution witnesses examined, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings at the earliest.
What did the court decide?
Second bail application rejected; trial to conclude; liberty to apply for bail afresh in three months if no material progress.
What the court decided
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 9155/2017
Sunil S/o Sh Kishana Ram, B/c Bishnoi Godara R/o Hameernagar Neembali Nadi Feench PS- Luni District Jodhpur. Presently In District Jail Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.S. Gill. For Respondent(s) : Mr. O.P. Rathi, Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order
13/09/2018
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor on this second bail application.
It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that trial has materially progressed and out of 26 prosecution witnesses, 13 have already been examined.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted despite the prosecution witnesses already being examined.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sunil S/o Sh Kishana Ram
- respondent
State Of Rajasthan
Coram
P.K. LOHRA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLMB/9155/2017
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court