Kashmir Mohammad Shekh v. State of Rajasthan
Case brief
What is this about?
Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur explained that it is not obligatory to record reasons for every interlocutory order refusing to record them would violate Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court also listed specific applicants (20-30) seeking anticipatory bail under Section 437 CrPC.
What the court decided
[2024:RJ-JD:29455]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 965/2024
Yaad Mohammad @ Chhotu Shekh S/o Anar Mohammad, Aged About 54 Years, R/o S-1/20, Pratap Nagar, Labour Colony, Bhilwara P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist. Bhilwara. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
----Appellant
Versus
- State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
- Gajendra Bhambi S/o Niranjan Bhambi, R/o House No. S-17/330, Labour Colony, Pratapnagar, Bhilwara
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 966/2024
- Kashmir Mohammad Shekh S/o Anaar Mohammad, Aged About 47 Years, R/o S-1/20 Pratapnagar, Labour Colony, Bhilwara P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist. Bhilwara. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Courts in Rajasthan are required to hear every appeals once in the High Court under Section 401 CrPC.
Whether orders refusing to record reasons in interlocutory applications violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Yaad Mohammad @ Chhotu Shekh
- appellant
Kashmir Mohammad Shekh
- appellant
Zeeshan Shekh
- appellant
Vahid Mohammad Shekh
- appellant
Sarfaraj Mohammd Shekh @ Sappu
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Rajasthan HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CRLAS/966/2024
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court