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.

Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mahaveer vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 09, 1990
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/757894

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. Cr. Misc. Bail Appl. No. 1526 of 1990
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal procedure code - Section 438--Anticitpatory bail--No injury memo regarding empty cartridges--No injury caused to any person--Held, bail under Section 438 be granted.;It appears that there was no recovery memo regarding empty cartridges. There is no injury caused to any person also.;I am inclined to grant in...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mahaveer

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1990(2)WLN173

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 438--anticitpatory bail--no injury memo regarding empty cartridges--no injury caused to any person--held, bail under section 438 be granted.;it appears that there was no recovery memo regarding empty cartridges. there is no injury caused to any person also.;i am inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of section 438 cr. pc, to the accused petitioner.;bail granted. - 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. - 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the sho/investigating officer/arresting officer, police station, mania, district dholpur, subject to the following conditions:i.s. israni, j.1. heard. it is submitted that incident took place on 5-5-1990 but fir was lodged on 9-5-1990. all other accused-persons have been released on bail under section 438, cr. pc. the petitioner is alleged to have armed with gun and fired three shots. how ever, on perusal of the diary, it appears that, there no recovery momo regarding empty cartridges. there is no injury caused to any person also.2. 2. in the facts and circumstances, i am inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of section 438,cr. pc to the accused-petitioner it is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioner, manaveer, in fir no. 116/90, police station mania, district dhdlpur, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the sho/investigating officer/arresting officer, police station, mania, district dholpur, subject to the following conditions:(i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;(ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any, person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing 'such facts to the court or to any police officer; and(iii) that he shall not leave india without the permission of the court.

Full Judgment

I.S. Israni, J.

1. Heard. It is submitted that incident took place on 5-5-1990 but FIR was lodged on 9-5-1990. All other accused-persons have been released on bail Under Section 438, Cr. PC. The petitioner is alleged to have armed with gun and fired three shots. How ever, on perusal of the diary, it appears that, there no recovery momo regarding empty cartridges. There is no injury caused to any person also.

2. 2. In the facts and circumstances, I am inclined to grant indulgence of the provisions of Section 438,Cr. PC to the accused-petitioner It is therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of accused-petitioner, Manaveer, in FIR No. 116/90, Police Station Mania, District Dhdlpur, he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction of the SHO/Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer, Police Station, Mania, District Dholpur, subject to the following conditions:

(i) That he shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

(ii) That he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any, person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing 'such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and

(iii) That he shall not leave India without the permission of the Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial