State sought leave to appeal against acquittal of six accused in a murder case. The court found no ground to condone a 299-day delay in filing, dismissed the limitation application and refused criminal leave to appeal.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:1804-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Leave To Appeal No. 664/2024
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s)
: Mr. Amit Punia, Addl. G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA
Order
13/01/2025
Heard on Criminal Leave To Appeal as well as on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
From perusal of the judgment of the Court below, it is revealed that there were three witnesses and the Court after dealing with the evidence has come to the conclusion that there
[2025:RJ-JP:1804-DB]
[CRLLA-664/2024]
(2 of 2)
were no eye witnesses. Even circumstances do not point towards the guilt of the accused, therefore, accused was acquitted.
Considering the above, we do not find any ground for condoning the inordinate delay of 299 days in filing the Criminal Appeal as well as for entertaining the Criminal Leave to Appeal.
Consequently, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and Criminal Leave to Appeal is also dismissed.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
AMIT/64
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of 299 days in filing the Criminal Leave to Appeal should be condoned.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
Ramkaran S/o Hajara
Ramswaroop S/o Ramkaran
Jodhraj S/o Ramkaran
Kamlesh S/o Prabhu
Rajendra S/o Shonath
Pankaj Bhandari
Shubha Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
