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.

Vaseem at Pilot and ors Vs. State of Rajasthan

Vaseem at Pilot and ors vs State of Rajasthan

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 05, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920462

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
Case No. CRLMB 6032 of 2011
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

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

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 384, 387, 323

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vaseem at Pilot and ors

Advocate Shri, Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan

Advocate Shri. Amit Punia, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 439; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 384, 387, 323

Excerpt

.....no.2 and 3 all the cases are of minor in nature. 3. learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. learned counsel for petitioners for the present does not press the bail application of the petitioner no.1 vaseem @ pilot. the bail application of petitioner no.1 is dismissed. 5. so far petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, i deem it just and proper to allow their bail application. it is therefore ordered that accused-petitioners, namely, imran @ kalia son of fateh mohd., resident of islam nagar, police station kanwas, kota and mohd. irshad @ bhuru son of sabbir mohd., resident of islam nagar, kota, presently 4-i-9, gali no.5, sanjay nagar, udiya basti, police station vigyan nagar, kota (presently confined in central jail, kota), be released on bail under section 439 cr.p.c., in fir no.79/2011, police station gumanpura, kota, for offence under sections 384, 387 and 323 ipc, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of rs.50,000/- with two sureties of rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 6. however, in case petitioners no.2 and 3 are again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future and that misstatement has been made about their whereabouts or non-registration of any other criminal case, the bail granted to them by this court in present case would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in bail bonds produced by petitioners, and sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by tehsildar of area concerned. 7. the bail application stands partly allowed.

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.

2. Learned counsel for petitioners argued that so far as petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, there is no overt-act assigned to them in the FIR. It was the petitioner no.1 who threatened the complainant on telephone and asked them to give one thousand rupees to remaining accused. Regarding previous cases, although learned counsel submitted that against petitioners no.2 and 3 all the cases are of minor in nature.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners for the present does not press the bail application of the petitioner no.1 Vaseem @ Pilot. The bail application of petitioner no.1 is dismissed.

5. So far petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow their bail application. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioners, namely, Imran @ Kalia Son of Fateh Mohd., Resident of Islam Nagar, Police Station Kanwas, Kota and Mohd. Irshad @ Bhuru Son of Sabbir Mohd., Resident of Islam Nagar, Kota, presently 4-I-9, Gali No.5, Sanjay Nagar, Udiya Basti, Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota (presently confined in Central Jail, Kota), be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.79/2011, Police Station Gumanpura, Kota, for offence under Sections 384, 387 and 323 IPC, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

6. However, in case petitioners no.2 and 3 are again found indulging in similar or any other offence at any point of time in future and that misstatement has been made about their whereabouts or non-registration of any other criminal case, the bail granted to them by this court in present case would be liable to be cancelled at the instance of prosecution on this ground alone and stipulation to this effect shall be inserted in bail bonds produced by petitioners, and sureties to be produced in support thereof shall be verified by Tehsildar of area concerned.

7. The bail application stands partly allowed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial