Single judge of High Court of Rajasthan heard bail application in theft case linked to FIR. Court noted multiple pending charges against petitioner, finding no cause to grant bail but directed trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail application rejected; Trial Court directed to expedite trial.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2559/2020
Arvind@pappu S/o Bhairu Singh B/c Rajput, R/o Shriram Nagar Colony Oil Factory Baran Ps Kotwali Dist. Baran Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Though Pp
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Panwar (through video conferencing) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupta Chopra, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Order
06/05/2020
This Criminal Misc. Bail Application has been preferred by the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.123/2019 registered at Police Station G.R.P. Kota (Raj.) for the offence under Section 380 IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner through video conferencing. It has been argued on behalf of the accusedpetitioner that charge-sheet in this case has been filed on 22.07.2019 the matter is triable by a Magistrate Court. The other criminal cases shown as pending against the accused-petitioner are false and no reliable evidence has been produced in this case by the prosecution. Trial of the case will take time. Till date, only two prosecution witnesses have been recorded.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and has argued that there is allegation of theft of the
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-2559/2020]
complainant’s ladies bag containing gold ornaments, cash and moblies etc. It has also been submitted that there are 10 other criminal case pending against the accused-petitioner out of which 6 case are related to theft and one case is relating to preparation for committing dacoity.
On consideration of arguments submitted by both the parties and perusal of the material available on record, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly to the pendency of 10 other criminal cases against the accused-petitioner, no case is made out for bail at this stage.
Hence, bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is hereby
rejected.
However, trial Court is directed to expedite the trial against the accused-petitioner.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J
Arun/12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. should be granted to the accused faced with charge of theft and pendency of multiple other criminal cases.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Arvind@pappu S/o Bhairu Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
