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.

State Vs. Sumer Chand

State vs Sumer Chand

Disposition Reference Rejecected Court Rajasthan Decided Jan 03, 1961
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/755668

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
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Criminal Reference No. 290 of 1960
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Reference Rejecected

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 409 and Criminal Procedure Code--Section 497--Bail by Magistrate--Offence punishable with life imprisonment or for a term of 10 years--Held, offence is punishable not for life imprisonment only and Magistrate has jurisdiction to release accused on bail.;Reference Rejected. - Section 2(k), 2(1), ...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Reference Rejecected

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State

Respondent

Sumer Chand

Legal References

Reported In
1985WLN(UC)186

Excerpt

penal code - section 409 and criminal procedure code--section 497--bail by magistrate--offence punishable with life imprisonment or for a term of 10 years--held, offence is punishable not for life imprisonment only and magistrate has jurisdiction to release accused on bail.;reference rejected. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. c.b. bhargava, j.1. this is a reference of the d.m. pali, recommending that the order of the first class magistrate, sojat dated 22-2-1960 releasing the accused on bail be set aside. in support of the reference learned distt. magistrate has referred to provisions of section 497 cr. pc which provides that the accused shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for holding that he has been guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. the accused is being prosecuted for an offence under section 409 ipc which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term of 10 years. it cannot be said that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for life only. learned magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to release the accused on bail. having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the order of the learned magistrate it cannot be said that he has wrongly exercised his discretion. learned dy. government advocate also does not support the reference. the reference is therefore rejected.

Full Judgment

C.B. Bhargava, J.

1. This is a reference of the D.M. Pali, recommending that the Order of the First Class Magistrate, Sojat dated 22-2-1960 releasing the accused on bail be set aside. In support of the reference learned Distt. Magistrate has referred to provisions of Section 497 Cr. PC which provides that the accused shall not be released on bail if there appears reasonable grounds for holding that he has been guilty of the offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The accused is being prosecuted for an offence Under Section 409 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term of 10 years. It cannot be said that the offence was punishable with imprisonment for life only. Learned Magistrate had therefore jurisdiction to release the accused on bail. Having regard to the circumstances mentioned in the Order of the learned Magistrate it cannot be said that he has wrongly exercised his discretion. Learned Dy. Government Advocate also does not support the reference. The reference is therefore rejected.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial