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.

Mala and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Mala and ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 16, 1992
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760465

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. 661 of 1992
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439--Bail--All injuries simple as per doctor's report--Held, court is inclined to enlarge accused on ball;The Doctor in his report dt. 12.4.92 has opined that there was no bony injury on her skull and as such all the injuries received by her were simple in nature.;I feel inclined to...

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mala and ors.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1992WLN(UC)87

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 439--bail--all injuries simple as per doctor's report--held, court is inclined to enlarge accused on ball;the doctor in his report dt. 12.4.92 has opined that there was no bony injury on her skull and as such all the injuries received by her were simple in nature.;i feel inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner(s) 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. rajendra saxena, j.1. heard and perused the available relevant record, case diary and injury report of smt. jethi. the doctor in his report dt. 12.4.92 has opined that there was no bony injury on her skull and as such all the injuries received by her were simple in nature.2. keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, i feel inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner(s) on bail.3. i, therefore, accept this bail application and order that petitioner(s) mala, sukhram and varinga, shall be released on bail provided each one of them executes his personal bond for a sum of rs. 10,000/- (rs. ten thousand) and furnishes two sound and substantial sureties in the amount of rs. 5,000/- each amount to the satisfaction of the learned addl. sessions judge, barmer with the stipulation to appear before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial.

Full Judgment

Rajendra Saxena, J.

1. Heard and perused the available relevant record, case diary and injury report of Smt. Jethi. The Doctor in his report dt. 12.4.92 has opined that there was no bony injury on her skull and as such all the injuries received by her were simple in nature.

2. Keeping in view all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case, I feel inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner(s) on bail.

3. I, therefore, accept this bail application and order that petitioner(s) Mala, Sukhram and Varinga, shall be released on bail provided each one of them executes his personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand) and furnishes two sound and substantial sureties in the amount of Rs. 5,000/- each amount to the satisfaction of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Barmer with the stipulation to appear before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial