Rajesh Vs. State

Rajesh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Feb 28, 1997

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/698265

CiteSignal

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/698265
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mohd. Shamim, J.
Decided On: Feb 28, 1997
Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous (Main) Appeal No. 303 of 1997
Subject: Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rajesh

Advocate S.K. Agarwal and; Raman Sawhney, Advs

Respondent

State

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 439
Reported In: 1997IIIAD(Delhi)689; 66(1997)DLT791

Bonus Feature

AI Brief & Ask

Your first-pass case note in minutes — an 18-section AI Brief on this judgment, plus case-scoped chat. Part of AI Studio with Verdict Lens, Devil's Bench, and DocMind.

Try free for 7 days

Credentials emailed — then log in for AI Brief on this judgment. Already have an account? · Learn more

Excerpt

- - 20,000.00 with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.mohd. shamim, j.(1) this is an application by the petitioner for release on bail. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. there is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. uma kant, public witness public witness 1 himself lodged report with the police with regard to the missing of the deceased. there is no mention in the said report about the petitioner as the person who took away the deceased. petitioner has been in custody since 6th august, 1996. learned p.p. on the other hand contended that smt. rani and uma kant saw the petitioner taking away the deceased from his house. considering the above facts and circumstances i think the present case is a fit case for bail. let the petitioner be released on bail of his furnishing a surety in the sum of rs. 20,000.00 with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Full Judgment

Mohd. Shamim, J.

(1) This is an application by the petitioner for release on bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is absolutely no evidence against the petitioner. Uma Kant, Public Witness Public Witness 1 himself lodged report with the police with regard to the missing of the deceased. There is no mention in the said report about the petitioner as the person who took away the deceased. Petitioner has been in custody since 6th August, 1996. Learned P.P. on the other hand contended that Smt. Rani and Uma Kant saw the petitioner taking away the deceased from his house. Considering the above facts and circumstances I think the present case is a fit case for bail. Let the petitioner be released on bail of his furnishing a surety in the sum of Rs. 20,000.00 with a personal bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.