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.

Sohan Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jun 01, 1987
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/769771

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. 1030 of 1987
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Penal Code - Section 409 and Criminal Procedure Code--Section 438--Anticipatory bail--Account of ticket-books not given--Fresh ticket-books issued without taking account of old ticket books--Held, he may be granted anticipatory bail.;Anticipatory Bail Granted - - 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sohan Lal

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In
1987WLN(UC)361

Excerpt

penal code - section 409 and criminal procedure code--section 438--anticipatory bail--account of ticket-books not given--fresh ticket-books issued without taking account of old ticket books--held, he may be granted anticipatory bail.;anticipatory bail granted - - 1. heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned public prosecutor for the state, and also perused the case-diary as well as the order of the learned trial court. 3. i fail to understand as to how fresh ticket-books were issued every time when no account for the ticket-books issued earlier, was given by the petitioner, as was required under the procedure of the corporation, as stated by satya narain, in his statement, recorded under section 161, cr......that account was to be given every month for the ticket-books issued to him. it is alleged that no account was given by the petitioner for the whole above period and the matter came into light only when audit-report was received.3. i fail to understand as to how fresh ticket-books were issued every time when no account for the ticket-books issued earlier, was given by the petitioner, as was required under the procedure of the corporation, as stated by satya narain, in his statement, recorded under section 161, cr.pc. evidently, no fresh tickets could be issued to the petitioner, unless account was given by him for the earlier tickets issued to him.4. in the facts and circumstances of the case, i am inclined to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. the sho/arresting officer/investigating officer, ps - nayapura, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner sohanlal, in fir no. 138/87, registered at that police station, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 20.000/- together with two sureties of rs. 10,000/- each, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, give 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 to any police officer; and(iii) that he shall not leave india without the previous permission of the court.

Full Judgment

Inder Sen Israni, V.J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, and also perused the case-diary as well as the order of the learned trial court.

2. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the occurrence is said to have taken place from 10th July to 13th Oct., 1986, and the FIR in respect of the same was lodged under Section 409, IPC, on 2nd May, 1987; and that, the allegation is that the petitioner after taking ticket-books, did not give any account for the same. From the statement of Satya Narain, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC, it comes out that account was to be given every month for the ticket-books issued to him. It is alleged that no account was given by the petitioner for the whole above period and the matter came into light only when audit-report was received.

3. I fail to understand as to how fresh ticket-books were issued every time when no account for the ticket-books issued earlier, was given by the petitioner, as was required under the procedure of the Corporation, as stated by Satya Narain, in his statement, recorded under Section 161, Cr.PC. Evidently, no fresh tickets could be issued to the petitioner, unless account was given by him for the earlier tickets issued to him.

4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant indulgence of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The SHO/Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer, PS - Nayapura, is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner Sohanlal, in FIR No. 138/87, registered at that police station, he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20.000/- together with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each, to his satisfaction, on the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that he shall not, directly or indirectly, give 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 to any police officer; and

(iii) that he 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