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.

Sedya Vs. State of Rajasthan

Sedya vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 27, 1988
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/763074

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. Second Bail Application No. 1890 of 1988
Subject
Criminal
Disposition
Application allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 438--Anticipatory bail--Two co-accused enlarged on anticipatory bail--Held, it is proper to enlarge petitioner also an bail.;Bail Granted - - 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:

Key legal issue
Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sedya

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1988WLN(UC)179a

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 438--anticipatory bail--two co-accused enlarged on anticipatory bail--held, it is proper to enlarge petitioner also an bail.;bail granted - - 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:p.c. jain, j.1. shri dhankar, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance on 1986 rlw 325 and submitted that since two co-accused have been enlarged on bail under section 438, cr.pc in s.b. cr. misc. bail application no. 1830/1988, the petitioner being similarly placed should be allowed the benefit of bail.2. looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, i think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.3. the sho/arresting officer, investigating officer, police station, bandikui (jaipur) in fir no. 78/1988 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:[1] that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;[2] that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any police officer; and[3] that the petitioner shall not leave india without the previous permission of the court.

Full Judgment

P.C. Jain, J.

1. Shri Dhankar, learned Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has placed reliance on 1986 RLW 325 and submitted that since two co-accused have been enlarged on bail under Section 438, Cr.PC in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1830/1988, the petitioner being similarly placed should be allowed the benefit of bail.

2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think it just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. The SHO/Arresting Officer, Investigating Officer, Police Station, Bandikui (Jaipur) in FIR No. 78/1988 is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) with one surety in the like amount, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:

[1] That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;

[2] That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court, or any Police Officer; and

[3] That the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial