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.

Basant Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Basant Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Sep 15, 1987
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/759839

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 Misc. Bail Application No. 2027 of 1987
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439--Bail--Allegation that petitioner caught hold of deceased and accused S inflicted Gupti blows in abdomen--Accused N, M and C received injuries by sharp edged weapon--Held, petitioner be released on bail.;Bail Granted - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Prot...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Basant Kumar

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1988WLN(UC)59

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 439--bail--allegation that petitioner caught hold of deceased and accused s inflicted gupti blows in abdomen--accused n, m and c received injuries by sharp edged weapon--held, petitioner be released on bail.;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. - i would not like to enter into the evidence on record but taking into consideration injuries sustained by the accused petitioner, i am inclinded to grant the bail.m.b. sharma, j.1. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned public prosecutor and mr. gupta who is arguing the case for the informant. out of the accused persons, three persons viz., naval kishore, chandra mohan and mahesh also received injuries including the injuries by sharp weapon. the allegations against the petitioner in the fir are that the petitioner caught hold of babulal and the accused mahesh inflicted a 'gupti' blow in his abdomen. in the statement, no doubt, under section 161 cr.pc a further improvement has been made that subsequently petitioner had taken gupti from co-accused shiv kumar and had inflicted two or three blows in the abdomen of deceased babu lal after he had fallen down. i would not like to enter into the evidence on record but taking into consideration injuries sustained by the accused petitioner, i am inclinded to grant the bail.2. consequently, i allow this bail application and here by order that the accused-petitioner basant kumar shall be released on bail provided he funished a person bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) in two sureties in the sum of rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of learned sessions judge, bundi for his appearance in that court or in any court at and when required.

Full Judgment

M.B. Sharma, J.

1. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Gupta who is arguing the case for the informant. Out of the accused persons, three persons viz., Naval Kishore, Chandra Mohan and Mahesh also received injuries including the injuries by sharp weapon. The allegations against the petitioner in the FIR are that the petitioner caught hold of Babulal and the accused Mahesh inflicted a 'Gupti' blow in his abdomen. In the statement, no doubt, under Section 161 Cr.PC a further improvement has been made that subsequently petitioner had taken Gupti from co-accused Shiv Kumar and had inflicted two or three blows in the abdomen of deceased Babu Lal after he had fallen down. I would not like to enter into the evidence on record but taking into consideration injuries sustained by the accused petitioner, I am inclinded to grant the bail.

2. Consequently, I allow this bail application and here by order that the accused-petitioner Basant Kumar shall be released on bail provided he funished a person bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand rupees) in two sureties in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Bundi for his appearance in that court or in any court at and when required.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial