Lal Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan

Lal Singh vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 25, 1989

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/761497

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/761497
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: K.S. Lodha, J.
Decided On: Apr 25, 1989
Case Number: S.B. Cr. Misc. 5th Bail Application No. 478 of 1989
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439(2)--Bail--Prosecution not taking proper care to expedite trial inspite of repealed directions by High Court--Held, accused be enlarged on bail.;So also was the case when 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-1989. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the prosecution h...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Lal Singh

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1989WLN(UC)55

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 439(2)--bail--prosecution not taking proper care to expedite trial inspite of repealed directions by high court--held, accused be enlarged on bail.;so also was the case when 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-1989. in these circumstances, it clearly appears that the prosecution has not taken proper care to expedite the trial and to finish the case. in these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.;bail granted - - so also was the case when the 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-89. in these circumstances, it clearly appears that the prosecution has not taken proper care to expedite the trial and to finish the case.k.s. lodha, j.1. this is 5th application for bail. the main ground is delay in the trial of the case. this application was filed as far back as on 15-3-89 and since then, the case has been adjourned thrice. one witness of the prosecution shri kalyan mal, add). s.p. has to be examined and the prosecution has been taking time again and again for the examination of this witness for one reason or the other. sufficient opportunities were already granted to the prosecution to examine this witness, but those opportunities have not been availed. the trial started on 12-5-87.2. the first application was dismissed on merits and the second application was dismissed on 12-2-88 with a direction that the learned public prosecutor should see that all the witnesses are examined without delay. then again on 21-9-88, the third application for bail was rejected with a similar direction. so also was the case when the 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-89. in these circumstances, it clearly appears that the prosecution has not taken proper care to expedite the trial and to finish the case. in these circumstances, i am of the opinion that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.3. i, therefore, direct that petitioner lalsingh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of rs. 5000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned sessions judge, bikaner to appear before that court on the next date of hearing and on all subsequent dates when ever called upon to appear.

Full Judgment

K.S. Lodha, J.

1. This is 5th application for bail. The main ground is delay in the trial of the case. This application was filed as far back as on 15-3-89 and since then, the case has been adjourned thrice. One witness of the prosecution Shri Kalyan Mal, Add). S.P. has to be examined and the prosecution has been taking time again and again for the examination of this witness for one reason or the other. Sufficient opportunities were already granted to the prosecution to examine this witness, but those opportunities have not been availed. The trial started on 12-5-87.

2. The first application was dismissed on merits and the second application was dismissed on 12-2-88 with a direction that the learned Public Prosecutor should see that all the witnesses are examined without delay. Then again on 21-9-88, the third application for bail was rejected with a similar direction. So also was the case when the 4th application was dismissed on 19-1-89. In these circumstances, it clearly appears that the prosecution has not taken proper care to expedite the trial and to finish the case. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail.

3. I, therefore, direct that petitioner Lalsingh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties of Rs. 5000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner to appear before that court on the next date of hearing and on all subsequent dates when ever called upon to appear.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1989 Same Parties Lal Singh vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Lodha, J.

Criminal