High Court considered bail application for accused present before it due to medical fitness despite earlier absence. Court granted bail with specific procedural directives regarding further legal actions.
Accused-appellant granted bail with conditions to appear before separate proceedings relating to judicial separation.
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
S.B. Cri. Bail (SOS) Application-321/2018 Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj.
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ihB] t;iqjA
%% vkns'k %%
S.B. Cri. Bail (SOS) Application-321/2018 IN S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 518/2018
Sunil Kumar Sharma S/o Shri B.p. Sharma B/c Brahamin, R/o H-11, Majdoor Nagar, Ajmer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Previously Personal Secretary, General Manager (First), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur.
----Accused-Appellant
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
%% mifLFkr %%
ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh egsUnz ekgs'ojh
vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk Jh iadt xqIrkA yksd vfHk;kstd Jh ,u-,l- 'ks[kkorA
%% vkns'k %% 13-03-2018
U;k;ky; }kjk %&
izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls /kkjk 389 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk ds varxZr izLrqr ltk LFkxu@tekur vkosnu ij nksuksa
2
S.B. Cri. Bail (SOS) Application-321/2018 Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj.
i{kksa dks lquk x;kA v/khuLFk fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vkyksP; fu.kZ; ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k dkuwuh o rF;kRed fLFkfr ij fopkj fd;k x;kA
;ksX; vf/koDrk izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ dk dFku jgk fd vihykFkhZ fopkj.k ds nkSjku tekur ij vktkn Fkk ,oa v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ls mldh ltk LFkfxr gSA vr% ltk LFkxu vkosnu dks Lohdkj fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dh xbZA
;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd us ltk LFkxu vkosnu dk
fojks/k fd;kA
leLr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA izdj.k ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ekeys ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk ,oa vihy ds fopkjkFkZ xzg.k fd;s tkus ds rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA
ifj.kker% ;g ltk LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ;fn izkFkhZ&vihykFkhZ lquhy dqekj 'kekZ bl U;k;ky; esa fnukad 13-04-2018 dks ,oa rRi'pkr tc Hkh mls vknsf'kr fd;k tkos] viuh mifLFkfr gsrq ipkl gtkj :i;s dk ca/ki= ,oa iPphl&iPphl gtkj :i;s dh nks tekursa fo}ku fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds larks"kizn izLrqr dj rLnhd djok ns rks mls tekur ij fjgk dj fn;k tk, ,oa fo}ku fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k] ls'ku U;k;ky;] Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] dze&1] t;iqj }kjk fu;fer QkStnkjh izdj.k la[;k &42@2003 esa ikfjr
3
S.B. Cri. Bail (SOS) Application-321/2018 Sunil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Raj.
vk{ksfir fu.kZ; fnukafdr 23-02 - 2018 ds rgr fn;s x;s n.Mkns'k dk fdz;kUo;u bl vihy ds vfUre fu.kZ; rd LFkfxr j[kk tkrk gSA
¼egsUnz ekgs'ojh½ U;k;kf/kifr
Fkkokuh@& mijksDr fu.kZ;@vkns'k Hkkjr ljdkj dk jkti= la[;k&1] fnukad 02 tuojh] 1999 esa izdkf'kr x`g ea=ky;] jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds ladYi@uksfVfQds'ku ds rgr lacaf/kr Hkk"kk ¼fgUnh½ esa [kqys U;k;ky; eas fy[kk;k x;kA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to accused-appellant who was in medical fitness at the time of judgment and remained absent before High Court.
Whether impugned bail order passed by Sessions Court should be justified under Section 439 CrPC considering applicant's medical condition.
Whether further proceedings under Rajasthan Judicial Separation Regulations should be stayed during bail proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Janardhan Prasad v. State of H.P.Referred¶18
Janardhan Prasad v. State of H.P., AIR 1992 SC 1418 · Who else cites this
Laveensah v. State of A.P.Referred¶18
Laveensah v. State of A.P., 1991 Cri LJ 3807 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sunil Kumar Sharma
State of Rajasthan
lekhn Misr
Amal Kumar Thakkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
