Dismissed

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/O Hari Narayan Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2019CRLBC/6/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous bail cancellation application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner challenged bail granted earlier, alleging witness threats. The respondent counsel countered with witness non-appearance and dropped proceedings. The court found no justification for cancellation and rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The present criminal miscellaneous bail cancellation application is rejected.

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/O Hari Narayan Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation No. 6/2019

¶3

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/o Hari Narayan Sharma B/c Brahmin, R/o Chainpura, P.s. Diggi, Distt. Tonk Raj.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan through PP, Raj.

¶7

Ram Sahay S/o Govind Narayan B/c Brahmin, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Chainpura, P.s. Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk. Raj.

¶8

Ganesh S/o Ram Niwas B/c Brahmin, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Chainpura, P.s. Diggi, Tehsil Malpura, Distt. Tonk. Raj.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Khandelawal. For State(s) : Mr. Arvind kumar, PP. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma. and 3.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶12

Order

¶13

05/03/2019

¶14

Complainant-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. bail

¶15

cancellation applications under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by order dated 04.10.2017.

¶16

It is contended by complainant-petitioner that the accused party is threatening witnesses, for which a complaint was made to the police. Police has placed the matter before Special Judicial Magistrate, who has passed the order against the respondents under Sections 107 & 116(3) of Cr.P.C.

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

[CRLBC-6/2019]

¶19

Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 & 3 has opposed the bail cancellation application. His contention is that bail was granted by the Court by way of back in October, 2017. Only three witnesses have been examined so far. Despite of various summons issued by the Court, witnesses do not appear in the Court to give evidence. t is also contended that the complainant did not lead any evidence before the S.D.M. and the proceedings under Section 107 & 116 of IPC were dropped.

¶20

I have considered the contentions and I do not find any justification in cancellation of bail application granted by the Court.

¶21

The present criminal misc. bail cancellation application is accordingly rejected.

¶22

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J.

¶23

Chandan/3

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/O Hari Narayan Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Sharma S/O Hari Narayan Sharma B/C Brahmin v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Bhupendra Singh S/O Balveer Singh, by Caste Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Islam S/O Kanti B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Jagannath S/O Gulabji B/C Bhil Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Brijendra Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj.

Abha Jain W/O Dr. Ashok Jain B/C Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Chittar Lal S/O Shri Govind Lal B/C Mali Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp