imran Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan

imran Khan vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided May 14, 1993

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/758848

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/758848
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Milap Chandra, J.
Decided On: May 14, 1993
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 602 of 1993
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

- 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 oc...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228(1) and 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326 and 341

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

imran Khan

Advocate Sandeep Mehta, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Hyder Aga, P.P.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228(1) and 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 326 and 341
Cases Referred: State v. Mohammed Imran and
Reported In: 1994CriLJ2

Excerpt

- 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. .....consideration as follows :--it is noteworthy to mention here that the injured arvind kumar himself is a notorious person of the locality and number of cases including cases of dacoity were registered against him at the police station dungarpur.in ground no. (b) it is stated--the first imformant arvind kumar is himself notorious person of the locality.large number of cases have been registered against him for various offences of dacoity etc. and it appears that the incident in question was the result of some illegal activity of arvind kumar which has been concealed by him in the first information report.5. if the injured arvind kumar is himself a notorious person of the locality and a large number of cases have been registered against him at the police station, dungarpur, the accused-petitioner mohd. imran khan deserves bail. 6. with the aforesaid observations, the bail application is disposed of. a copy of the order be sent to the learned sessions judge, dungarpur to release the petitioner mohd. imran khan on bail to his satisfaction, if the injured arvind kumar is a notorious man of the locality and a number of cases including offences of dacoity have been registered against him.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Milap Chandra, J.

1. This second bail application has been moved under Section 439, Cr. P.C. by the accused-petitioner Imran Khan who is facing trial in Sessions Case No. 6 of 1993 State v. Mohammed Imran and 12 others in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dungarpur under Sections 147, 341, 323 and 307, I.P.C. The first bail application S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appln. No. 209/93 was dismissed on January 22, 1993 as not pressed. By that time, challan was not filed.

2. The learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner has filed a certified copy of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur dated April 12, 1993 passed under Section 228(1), Cr. P.C. holding that no case under Section 307, I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons and a case under Sections 148, 323, 324 and 326, read with Section 149, I.P.C. is made out against them and has transferred it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur for trial in accordance with law. He has also filed a certificate of Dr. Anil K. Banvir Junior Specialist (Orthopaedics), General Hospital, Dungarpur stating that Mrs. Jainab wife of Mohd. Ahamed (mother of the accused-petitioner) is physically handicapped from both upper limbs and right lower limb and is unable to perform her normal routine day to day activities of life.

3. The learned Sessions Judge has mentioned in his order dated March 11, 1993 rejecting the bail application that the accused-petitioner inflicted two knife blows, one on the stomach and another on the intestine of the injured Arvind Kumar. Offence under Section 326, I.P.C. is also punishable with life imprisonment.

4. It is stated in para No. 1 of the application under consideration as follows :--

It is noteworthy to mention here that the injured Arvind Kumar himself is a notorious person of the locality and number of cases including cases of dacoity were registered against him at the police station Dungarpur.

In ground No. (B) it is stated--

The first imformant Arvind Kumar is himself notorious person of the locality.

Large number of cases have been registered against him for various offences of dacoity etc. and it appears that the incident in question was the result of some illegal activity of Arvind Kumar which has been concealed by him in the First Information Report.

5. If the injured Arvind Kumar is himself a notorious person of the locality and a large number of cases have been registered against him at the Police Station, Dungarpur, the accused-petitioner Mohd. Imran Khan deserves bail.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the bail application is disposed of. A copy of the order be sent to the learned Sessions Judge, Dungarpur to release the petitioner Mohd. Imran Khan on bail to his satisfaction, if the injured Arvind Kumar is a notorious man of the locality and a number of cases including offences of dacoity have been registered against him.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1993 Same Parties imran Khan vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Milap Chandra, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 228(1) an...

Criminal