Surendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan

Surendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Rajasthan Decided Apr 17, 2000

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/764791

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/764791
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: B.J. Shethna, J.
Decided On: Apr 17, 2000
Case Number: Cri. Misc. 2nd Bail Petn. No. 1019 of 2000
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439--Bail--Petitioner earlier jumping bail and absconding for about a year--Himself responsible for delay in his trial--Other co-accused convicted--Petitioner should not be released on bail--However, office to prepare a certified copy of the record of lower Court and remit the...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 149 and 302

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surendra Kumar

Advocate S.G. Ojha, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate G.K. Vyas, Public Prosecutor

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 149 and 302
Reported In: 2000CriLJ2619; 2000(2)WLN123

Excerpt

criminal procedure code, 1973 - section 439--bail--petitioner earlier jumping bail and absconding for about a year--himself responsible for delay in his trial--other co-accused convicted--petitioner should not be released on bail--however, office to prepare a certified copy of the record of lower court and remit the original record so that the trial of petitioner may proceed.;bail rejected - - 3. from the impugned order passed by the learned judge on 22-10-1999, it clearly appears that for delay in trial, none else but the present petitioner himself was responsible. 4. under the circumstances, when the accused who was enlarged on bail has jumped the bail, then it will not be safe to release him on bail once again particularly when the other co-accused has been convicted after the trial by the trial court......been admitted and is pending before this court.2. it was submitted by learned counsel mr. ojha for the petitioner that while admitting the appeal of the co-accused except the main accused sanjay who was convicted for the offence punishable under section 302, ipc and section 302 read with section 149, ipc of other co-accused have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner accused should also be released on bail because there is no likelihood of the completion of trial within a short time.3. from the impugned order passed by the learned judge on 22-10-1999, it clearly appears that for delay in trial, none else but the present petitioner himself was responsible. as he jumped the bail after he was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial, he remained absconding for a period of nearly one year and after his arrest since 1998, he is in jail.4. under the circumstances, when the accused who was enlarged on bail has jumped the bail, then it will not be safe to release him on bail once again particularly when the other co-accused has been convicted after the trial by the trial court. hence this second bail petition has to be rejected and is rejected.5. however, there is some substance in what was submitted by learned counsel mr. ojha for that petitioner will have to unnecessarily remain in jail without trial being completed because while admitting the appeal, the record is already called for from the trial court, therefore, the trial court would not be in a position to go on with the matter against the petitioner. this can be taken care of by directing the office to prepare the certified copy of the record, which is already called for from the trial court while admitting the appeal by the division bench of this court, and thereafter the original record be remitted to the trial court for early disposal of the trial against the present petitioner.6. accordingly, the office is directed to take out the certified copies of the entire record received by it in.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. This second bail application is filed by Surendra Kumar s/o Shivdayal on the ground that he is in jail since 24-7-1998 and no progress has taken place in the trial pending against him before the trial Court and that the other co-accused were convicted by the Trial Court on 7-8-98 against which they preferred an appeal which has been admitted and is pending before this Court.

2. It was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ojha for the petitioner that while admitting the appeal of the co-accused except the main accused Sanjay who was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC and Section 302 read with Section 149, IPC of other co-accused have been enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner accused should also be released on bail because there is no likelihood of the completion of trial within a short time.

3. From the impugned order passed by the learned Judge on 22-10-1999, it clearly appears that for delay in trial, none else but the present petitioner himself was responsible. As he jumped the bail after he was enlarged on bail during the pendency of the trial, he remained absconding for a period of nearly one year and after his arrest since 1998, he is in jail.

4. Under the circumstances, when the accused who was enlarged on bail has jumped the bail, then it will not be safe to release him on bail once again particularly when the other co-accused has been convicted after the trial by the Trial Court. Hence this second bail petition has to be rejected and is rejected.

5. However, there is some substance in what was submitted by learned counsel Mr. Ojha for that petitioner will have to unnecessarily remain in jail without trial being completed because while admitting the appeal, the record is already called for from the trial Court, therefore, the trial Court would not be in a position to go on with the matter against the petitioner. This can be taken care of by directing the office to prepare the certified copy of the record, which is already called for from the trial Court while admitting the appeal by the Division Bench of this Court, and thereafter the original record be remitted to the Trial Court for early disposal of the trial against the present petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the office is directed to take out the certified copies of the entire record received by it in D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 529/98 from the Trial Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1. Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. 72/95 and remit the original record to the Trial Court for early disposal of the trial.

7. The office shall do it as early as possible preferably within fortnigh from today and after preparting the certified copy of the record, the same shall be sent to the trial Court forthwith. On receiving the original record, the Trial Court shall prosecute the trial against the present petitioner and try to decide the case as early as possible preferably within six months from the receipt of the record.

8. With these observations, this second bail petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2000 Same Parties Surendra Kumar vs State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge B.J. Shethna, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302; Code of Civil P...

Criminal