Siya Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan

Siya Ram vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 28, 1988

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/763280

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/763280
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: Mohini Kapoor, J.
Decided On: Jul 28, 1988
Case Number: S B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1671 of 1988
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 439(2)--Bail--Accused identified by one witness only--Name not mentioned in FIR--Prosecution not producing case diary inspite of several opportunities--Prima facie case against accused can be determined by evidence collected and not by observations of Judge--Held, accused be release...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Siya Ram

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1988WLN(UC)191

Excerpt

criminal procedure code - section 439(2)--bail--accused identified by one witness only--name not mentioned in fir--prosecution not producing case diary inspite of several opportunities--prima facie case against accused can be determined by evidence collected and not by observations of judge--held, accused be released on bail.;bail granted - .....that the only evidence against the petitioner is, identification by one witness vishanlata and this should not be taken to be sufficient evidence for the purpose of retaining the petitioner in custody. second circumstance is that the dacoits while talking to each other took names and name of siya ram was also taken by them. however, this fact does not find place in the fir.3. several opportunities were given to the learned public prosecutor to call for the case diary in this case but the same has not been produced for the perusal of this court, inspite of letters written to the director general of police, rajasthan and other authorities. this with holding of the case diary creates suspicion. three persons were kidnapped and it appears that out of them only one has identified the accused. however at this stage, it cannot be said what is the actual evidence against the petitioner as a result of investigation, but when he is a resident of the neighbouring village and the chances are that the complainant knew him from before then it would not be proper to deny bail to him section 5 of the, dacoity affected areas act lays down special law for the purpose, of grant of bail to persons being tried under this act but in order to seek an order refusing bail to such person it is necessary for the prosecution to show that, there is prima facie case against the accused and this can be shown by evidence collected in the case and not by the observations of the special judge in the order rejecting bail.4. considering all the circumstances the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his frunishing a personal bond of rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) and two sureties of rs. 5,000/- each for his appearance before the trial court on the next date as and when called to do so with the condition that he shall not commit any offence during the time of the trial is pending.

Full Judgment

Mohini Kapoor, J.

1. An incident occurred on the night of 13/14th April, 1988 in which dacoity was committed at the house of Sita Ram and Jasodra. It is alleged that 10 or 12 dacoits who were armed with arms came and they fired and took away one boy and two girls. In this incident the petitioner was arrested on 25-5-1988. His bail application has been rejected by the Special Judge, Dholpur by order dated 24-6-1988.

2. In his petition it has been contended that the only evidence against the petitioner is, identification by one witness Vishanlata and this should not be taken to be sufficient evidence for the purpose of retaining the petitioner in custody. Second circumstance is that the dacoits while talking to each other took names and name of Siya Ram was also taken by them. However, this fact does not find place in the FIR.

3. Several opportunities were given to the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary in this case but the same has not been produced for the perusal of this Court, inspite of letters written to the Director General of Police, Rajasthan and other authorities. This with holding of the case diary creates suspicion. Three persons Were kidnapped and it appears that out of them only one has identified the accused. However at this stage, it cannot be said what is the actual evidence against the petitioner as a result of investigation, but when he is a resident of the neighbouring village and the chances are that the complainant knew him from before then it would not be proper to deny bail to him Section 5 of the, Dacoity Affected Areas Act lays down special law for the purpose, of grant of bail to persons being tried under this Act but in order to seek an order refusing bail to such person it is necessary for the prosecution to show that, there is prima facie case against the accused and this can be shown by evidence collected in the case and not by the observations of the Special Judge in the order rejecting bail.

4. Considering all the circumstances the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his frunishing a personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) and two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each for his appearance before the trial Court on the next date as and when called to do so with the condition that he shall not commit any offence during the time of the trial is pending.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1988 Same Parties Siya Ram vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge Mohini Kapoor, J.

Criminal