Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Raj Kumar Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Raj Kumar vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Jul 30, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048096

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Raj Kumar

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

30.7.2012 shri ramesh tamrakar, advocate for the applicant. shri prakash gupta, pl for the state. this is the firs.bail application filed by the applicant under section 439 of the cr.p.c.for grant of bail. the applicant is in custody since 3.4.2012 in connection with crime no.33/2012 registered at p.s.sultanganj, district raisen for the offence punishable under sections 366, 363, 376, 506 of the ipc. learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case. there is no allegation against the applicant in regard to commission of rape. the only allegation against the applicant is that he helped the co-accused in abducting the prosecutrix. the prosecutrix had gone with co-accused dhaniram on her own accord. the applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail. learned counsel for state has opposed the application. on due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, i am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of rs.30,000/- (rs.thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal court/trial court for securing his presence before the said court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial. certified copy as per rules. (g.s.solanki) judge pb

Full Judgment

30.7.2012 Shri Ramesh Tamrakar, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri Prakash Gupta, PL for the State.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of bail.

The applicant is in custody since 3.4.2012 in connection with Crime No.33/2012 registered at P.S.Sultanganj, District Raisen for the offence punishable under sections 366, 363, 376, 506 of the IPC.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.

There is no allegation against the applicant in regard to commission of rape.

The only allegation against the applicant is that he helped the co-accused in abducting the prosecutrix.

The prosecutrix had gone with co-accused Dhaniram on her own accord.

The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.

Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.

On due consideration of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.

Certified copy as per rules.

(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial