Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as the petitioner faced serious charges including kidnapping and robbery. The High Court noted the rejection of a co-accused's bail and the gravity of offences involved.
Bail application dismissed; 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. 5407/2022
Dinesh Kumar @ Dhanna Son Of Shri Kishan Lal, Resident Of Anandpura, Post Dhigariya, Police Station Lawan, District Dausa (Raj.) ( At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar Mr. Manak Chand Jain & Mr. Ankit Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
06/12/2022
The present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of petitioner in connection with FIR No. 306/2021 registered at Police Station Bassi, District Jaipur City (East) wherein he is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 386, 347, 323 and 34 IPC.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2022 and trial will take its own time to conclude, so, indulgence of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned PP has opposed the bail application and submitted that the bail application of the co-accused Sunil Kumar has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-5407/2022]
appreciating the evidence of victim and other witnesses. Learned PP submitted that there is no distinction between the case of the petitioner with the case of co-accused Sunil Kumar. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence of bail by this Court.
I have considered the arguments put forward by counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.
Looking to the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner and co-accused are identical and the bail application of co-accused Sunil Kumar has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.11.2022 and looking to the gravity of the offences levelled against the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.
However, the trial Court is expected to expedite the trial of the case.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
HEENA GANDHI /7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail is a fit case to be granted to the petitioner facing charges of kidnapping, robbery, and voluntary causing hurt.
Whether the proceedings can be quashed and bail granted given the petitioner's claim of false implication.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar @ Dhanna
The State Of Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
