Dismissed

Ikbal Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Apr 2023CRLMB/1295/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan rejected the plea for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that, given the gravity of the offences and the fact that certain witness statements were unrecorded, the petitioner was not a fit case for bail, despite a request to expedite trial.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is rejected; the trial is directed to be expedited.

Ikbal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/008926]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1295/2023

¶4

-Second bail application.

¶5

Ikbal Khan S/o Sh. Dine Khan, Aged About 4 Years, B/c Muslim, R/o Sindhiyo Ki Dhani Hal H.no. 249, Anand Nagar, P.s. Industrial Area, Pali, Jodhpur, Raj. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Pichiyak, Bilara Dist. Jodhpur).

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. S. D. Purohit
	Mr. Ram Sukh Mali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
	Mr. Ramesh Purohit for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

05/04/2023

¶14

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.167/2021 of Police Station Industrial Area, District Pali for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 302, 148, 149 & 120B of IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. First bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 22.07.2022.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence available against the petitioner so as to connect him with the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the deceased died due to septicemia after five days of the date of incident. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court delivered

[2023/RJJD/008926]

[CRLMB-1295/2023]

(2 of 2)

in the case of BN Kavatakar Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1994 supplementary (1)SCC 304 and the order of this Court dated 05.07.2016 passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7280/2016. The accused-petitioner is behind the bars since long and the trial of the case will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that statements of witnesses Ramesh and Kanwarlal are yet to be recorded. Therefore, the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Heard counsel for the parties and persued the material available on record.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking into the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioner, and in view of the fact that statements of Nazir and Sikandar are yet to be recorded without commenting on merits and demerits of the case. I do not find it a fit case to grant bail, at this stage, to the accused petitioner.

¶23

Consequently, the present bail application is rejected.

¶24

However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case.

¶25

A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court through email or fax.

¶26

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶27

53-nidhi/-

Ikbal Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ikbal Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anamika Vs State of Rajasthan

Girish Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhavesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju @ Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan