Dismissed
Ramswaroop @ Radheyshyam v. State
Rajasthan HCCRLMB/2988/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.…
What the court decided
AI extract
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B.…
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 AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2988/2020
Ramswaroop @ Radheyshyam S/o Bhura @ Ramkaran, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Mogya, R/o Tikad Basti, P.s. Hanumannagar District Bhilwara. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Parbatsar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Ravindra Acharya through VC |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mukhtiar Khan,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Judgment / Order
10/08/2020
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as an abundant caution, hearing of the cases shall be both through video conferencing and physical appearance.
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 173/2016, Police Station Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, registered for the offence under Sections 302, 394 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conferencing stated that in regard to recovery, information was received from the petitioner which is at Page No.19; that information was given on 03.09.2016 and thereafter, recovery was made on 04.09.2016. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that false information was received by I.O. which is at page No.20 and another information received from accused Sitaram is
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-2988/2020]
doubtful. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that since long petitioner is in judicial custody and trial of the case will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and stated that six other cases are pending against the accused-petitioner, out of which two cases are under Section 302 IPC.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner (through video conferencing) and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, after thoughtful consideration of both the sides and particularly the fact that statement of PW-10 (Nanu Ram, driver) last seen witness is incomplete, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the accusedpetitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
1-amit/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case where the judge finds the case statement incomplete.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramswaroop @ Radheyshyam
State
Deendayal Kachhawaha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court