Rajasthan Court April 2005 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ganesh Raj Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: 2005CriLJ2086; RLW2005(2)Raj1048; 2005(2)WLC327
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.1. Precise question that has been referred to us for consideration is:-'Whether second or subsequent bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable or not?'2. In our endeavour to answer the question, we may begin with noticing that provision of Anticipatory bail was introduced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 Under the old Code 1898 there was no such provision. There were conflicting decisions of the High Court. Some of the High Courts took the view that bail could be granted to a person against whom a report of an offence was made even though he was neither arrested nor detained and even in a case where a person was suspected of an offence for which he might be arrested by a police officer but the majority of the High Court held that not to speak of Sessions Judge even High Court did not have inherent power to grant anticipatory bail by invoking 561A of the old Code. However Law Commission in the 41st report advocated the grant...
Gurubux Singh Vs. Laxmi NaraIn and anr.
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(2)Raj1423
Prakash Tatia, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.2. The petitioner/defendant sought permission to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff by submitting application before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'. The Trial Court vide order dated 03.12.2004 allowed cross-examination of the plaintiff and his son only and rejected the prayer to permit cross-examination of the other witnesses of the plaintiff.3. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner, the petitioner should have been granted opportunity to cross examine other witnesses of the plaintiff also. It is submitted that in view of the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aasandas v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., D.B. C. W. P. No. 4374/2004, RLW 2005(2) Raj. 1281 on 13.12.2004, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the order dated 03.12.2004 deserves to be set aside.4. Learned Counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that the order was passe...
Hajari and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court: Rajasthan
Decided on: Apr-01-2005
Reported in: RLW2005(3)Raj1672; 2005(3)WLC689
F.C. Bansal, J.1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 25.02.2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhunjhunu whereby accused- appellants Hajari, Gopal, Mohan, Ummed Singh and Dharamveer have been convicted for the offences under Sections 147 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to further suffer S.I. for one month and to suffer R.I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to further suffer S.I. for four months each respectively.Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.2. Briefly stated, the facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.3.1996 'Parcha-bayan' Ex.P14 of PW10 Indrapal S/o Harlal Singh, by caste-Jat, aged 32 years, R/o Kithana, P.S. Chidawa was recorded at 11.05 p.m. by PW14 Prahlad Singh, ASI, P.S. Kotwali, Jhunjhunu in B.D.K. Hospital, Jhunjhunu wherein it was stated by Indrapal that today at about 7.30 p.m. he alongwith Raghuv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›