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.

Sunil Vs. State of Rajasthan

Sunil vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 09, 1992
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/760950

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 Application No. 2411 of 1992
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 438--Anticipatory bail--Injury on thigh--Matter compromised and injured not interested to prorecute case--Held, court is inclined to grant bail Under Section 438.;The injury is on the thigh. It further appears that the injured Ram Charan has submitted an application before the Addl....

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunil

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1992WLN(UC)140

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 438--anticipatory bail--injury on thigh--matter compromised and injured not interested to prorecute case--held, court is inclined to grant bail under section 438.;the injury is on the thigh. it further appears that the injured ram charan has submitted an application before the addl. sessions judge, hindaun to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused-persons and he is not interesting in prosecuting the case.;i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under section 438 cr.p.c.;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. - five thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the sho, to appear before him for interrogation as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of investigation/trial against him.n.l. tibrewal, j.1. heard teamed counsel for the petitioner and the learned public prosecutor. case diary perused. from the case dirty, it does not appear that the injury sustained by ram charan was subsequently found to be grievous or dangerous to life, the injury is on the thigh. it further appears that the injured ram charan has submitted an application before the addl. sessions judge, hindaun to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused-persons and he is not interested in prosecuting the case.2. taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, i am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under section 438 cr.p.c.3. it is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner sunil s/o shri ram dayal, if sought to be arrested by the sho, ps-hindaun in pursuance to fir no. 300/92, he shall be released on bail by the sho/io concerned on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- (rs. five thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the sho, to appear before him for interrogation as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of investigation/trial against him.

Full Judgment

N.L. Tibrewal, J.

1. Heard teamed Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Case diary perused. From the case dirty, it does not appear that the injury sustained by Ram Charan was subsequently found to be grievous or dangerous to life, the injury is on the thigh. It further appears that the injured Ram Charan has submitted an application before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Hindaun to the effect that he has compromised the matter with the accused-persons and he is not interested in prosecuting the case.

2. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

3. It is, therefore, ordered that the petitioner Sunil S/o Shri Ram Dayal, if sought to be arrested by the SHO, PS-Hindaun in pursuance to FIR No. 300/92, he shall be released on bail by the SHO/IO concerned on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five thousands) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the SHO, to appear before him for interrogation as and when called upon to do so during the pendency of investigation/trial against him.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial