High Court allowed fourth bail application in a dowry death case. Judgment noted three-and-a-half-year custody, delayed trial, and cited precedents granting bail due to excessive incarceration time.
Fourth bail application allowed; accused released on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:23236]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fourth Bail Application No.
8753/2023
Dilshad @ Golu S/o Shri Ashfak, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Pipalda, P.S. Itawa, District Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Kota Central Jail)
----Applicant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma, Adv. For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Order
15/09/2023
[2023:RJ-JP:23236]
[CRLMB-8753/2023]
(2 of 4)
11.08.2021, trial Court was directed to expedite the disposal of the case. It is contended that a period of two years since then has lapsed and out of 25 witnesses, only twelve witnesses have been examined. It is further contended that grand-father of the deceased is not turning up inspite of bailable warrants being issued against him.
[2023:RJ-JP:23236]
[CRLMB-8753/2023]
(3 of 4)
Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan” Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).5397/2019, decided by the Apex Court on 10.01.2020, where at the stage of defence evidence, bail was granted to the accused.
Punjab 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504” has extended the benefit of bail where custody period of accused was more than two years. In “Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh” (supra) benefit of bail was given to the accused where custody period was two years and seven months. In “Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan” (supra) bail was granted to the accused where the matter was fixed for defence evidence and in “Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir” (supra) bail was granted to the accused as accused had suffered incarceration for a period of two years and five months. In “Tapan Das Vs. Union of India” (supra) bail was granted to the accused where custody period was around four years.
[2023:RJ-JP:23236] (4 of 4)
[CRLMB-8753/2023]
so far; conclusion of trial is bound to take time and considering the above judgments, I deem it proper to allow the fourth bail application.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
CHANDAN /10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant who has remained in custody for three and a half years with delayed trial.
Whether the delay in trial and non-appearance of witnesses justifies grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union Territory of Jammu and KashmirDistinguished¶20
Abdul Majeed Lone Vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal PradeshDistinguished¶20
Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Tapan Das Vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶20
Tapan Das Vs. Union of India
S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.15204/2020Relied on¶21
S.B. Criminal Misc. Fourth Bail Application No.15204/2020
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The State of RajasthanDistinguished¶26
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan
Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504Relied on¶29
Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1991 Supp(1) SCC 504 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dilshad @ Golu
The State Of Rajasthan
Pankaj Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
