Balkar Singh Vs. State

Balkar Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Mar 01, 1993

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/692287

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/692287
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.L. Gupta, J.
Decided On: Mar 01, 1993
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2418 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case questioned whether the bail could be granted to the accused who was charged of exhortation - It was found that the accused was playing main role in the crime - On the basis of the above, it was held that under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the bail could not be granted to accused -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Balkar Singh

Advocate Atul Batra,; J. Sethi and; Seema Gulati, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439
Reported In: 50(1993)DLT80

Excerpt

the case questioned whether the bail could be granted to the accused who was charged of exhortation - it was found that the accused was playing main role in the crime - on the basis of the above, it was held that under section 439 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, the bail could not be granted to accused - r.l. gupta, j.(1) petitioner has been booked under sections302, 307 read with sections 34, 147. 148 and 149 indian penal code in fir 158/90registered in ps kalkaji, new delhi. he applies for bail.(2) i have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for theparties. the case of the prosecution is that on 19-5-90 at about 8 00 a. m.vijay kumar and three others were traveling in car no. dhd 3570. they had come from mohan nagar. the petitioner is one of the employee in afactory, namely, punj lloyd & co. the car was intercepted on the way by the petitioner and other employees of the factory. they exhorted that the occupants of the car be killed. one ram kishan, co-accused had a fivelt. tin of kerosene oil. the liquid was thrown upon the occupants of the car. suresh kumar was one of the occupants. he suffered from 35% burns and ultimately succumbed to injuries on account of the burns.(3) it is contended that at the most petitioner is charged with exhortation and thereforee, he deserves to be released on bail. it may be noted that the petitioner was allegedly one of those persons who stopped the car later on he also gave an exhortation and instigated others on account of which one of them threw the liquid from the tin on the occupants of the car and set them ablaze. thereforee, besides exhortation, he was also responsible for stopping the car as is the case of the prosecution.(4) then it is contended that in the summary of brief facts, it was not mentioned that captain sunil sharma was also given information.even it is not mentioned that the petitioner gave an exhortation. at thisstage, it is not possible to attach much importance to these facts and if so,what is the effect of tin- omission. it will be seen only during trial as to why such facts were not mentioned in the summary of brief facts. i do not find any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

Full Judgment

R.L. Gupta, J.

(1) Petitioner has been booked under Sections302, 307 read with Sections 34, 147. 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code in Fir 158/90registered in Ps Kalkaji, New Delhi. He applies for bail.

(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. The case of the prosecution is that on 19-5-90 at about 8 00 a. m.Vijay Kumar and three others were traveling in car No. Dhd 3570. They had come from Mohan Nagar. The petitioner is one of the employee in afactory, namely, Punj Lloyd & Co. The car was intercepted on the way by the petitioner and other employees of the factory. They exhorted that the occupants of the car be killed. One Ram Kishan, co-accused had a fiveLt. tin of Kerosene oil. The liquid was thrown upon the occupants of the car. Suresh Kumar was one of the occupants. He suffered from 35% burns and ultimately succumbed to injuries on account of the burns.

(3) It is contended that at the most petitioner is charged with exhortation and thereforee, he deserves to be released on bail. It may be noted that the petitioner was allegedly one of those persons who stopped the car Later on he also gave an exhortation and instigated others on account of which one of them threw the liquid from the tin on the occupants of the car and set them ablaze. thereforee, besides exhortation, he was also responsible for stopping the car as is the case of the prosecution.

(4) Then it is contended that in the summary of brief facts, it was not mentioned that Captain Sunil Sharma was also given information.Even it is not mentioned that the petitioner gave an exhortation. At thisStage, it is not possible to attach much importance to these facts and if so,what is the effect of tin- omission. It will be seen only during trial as to why such facts were not mentioned in the summary of brief facts. I do not find any merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1993 Same Parties Balkar Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.L. Gupta, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439

Criminal