Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Both these petitions arise out of the same impugned order, namely order dated 05.03.2011, passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Judge had issued process under Section 319 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. Thus, they are being decided together by this common judgment.2. Being taken from S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.333/2011, the brief facts are that on 19.02.2009 the Parchabayan of Sheeshram, respondent No.2, was recorded by the police. In his Parchabayan, Sheeshram claimed that on 18.02.2009, while he was returning from the village Deda Ki Dhani, along with his nephew, he was assaulted by Rakesh Jat, Suresh Jat, Pradeep, Chidia and by two or four other persons, whose names he does not know. According to him, he was first assaulted by Pradeep and Rakesh and subsequently by others. According to him, these persons were armed with Lathies and Barchi. He further claimed that his nephew, Dilip, called up Dharmveer, who came there in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1.The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2010, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bassi, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Section 323 IPC. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2008, the complainant, Hari Narayan, submitted a written report at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur (Rural) with regard to the occurrence which took place on 15.08.2008 at 9-10 PM. In the said written report, he claimed that on 15.08.2008 around 9-10 PM, when he was sitting in the house, the accused-petitioners had forcefully entered into the house and had assaulted him with stones. Consequently, he had suffered certain injuries on the internal parts of his body. Upon hearing the noise, his neighbours came and rescued him. Upon receiving the said written report, the police registered a FIR, FIR No.425/2008, against the accused-petitioners for offences under Section 143, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1.Relying on the cases of Angana & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767], Takht Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [(2001) 10 SCC 463], and Dara Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail (for Suspension of Sentence) Application No.9/2010, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.575/2008, decided on 25.01.2011], Mr. Vijay Singh Shekhawat, the learned counsel for the appellants, has vehemently argued that in case the accused-appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence and in case the criminal appeal cannot be decided within the remaining period of the sentence, then the sentence of the accused-appellant should be suspended. According to him, the accused-appellants have already served four years out of the seven years of their sentence. Thus, they have undergone a substantial part of their sentence.2. On the other hand, Mr. R.R. Baisla, the learned counsel for the complainant and Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, have contended that even the cases refer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1.Aggrieved by the order dated 01.03.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Judge has framed the charges for offences under Sections 148, 323, 325, 326, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 4/25 Arms Act, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that according to the prosecution the injured, Bhikam Chand, had received merely six injuries out of which only two injuries, namely injuries Nos. 1 & 2 are said to be grievous in nature. Both the injuries, caused by the sharp-edged weapon, are on the non-vital part of the body. However, as they are not on the vital parts of the body, there is no possibility of death being caused in the ordinary nature of course. Thus, the charge for offence under Section 307 IPC is unsustainable. In order to buttress this contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the cases of Man Mohan & Ors. V/s. State of Rajasthan [2006 (2) Cr.L.R. (R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1.Relying on the cases of Angana & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan [(2009) 3 SCC 767], Takht Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P. [(2001) 10 SCC 463], and Dara Singh v. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail (for Suspension of Sentence) Application No.9/2010, in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.575/2008, decided on 25.01.2011], Mr. Harendra Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently argued that in case the accused-appellant has served a substantial part of his sentence and in case the criminal appeal cannot be decided within the remaining period of the sentence, then the sentence of the accused-appellant should be suspended. According to him, the accused-appellant has already served three years and eleven months out of the seven years of his sentence. Thus, he has undergone a substantial part of his sentence.2. On the other hand, Mrs. Alka Bhatnagar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has contended that even the cases referred by the learned counsel for the appellant do not lay down a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 28.02.2011, passed by the Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Alwar ('the Board', for short), whereby the learned Magistrate had denied the benefit of bail to the petitioner, and also aggrieved by the order dated 11.03.2011, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 28.02.2011, the petitioner has approached this Court. The brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Batuli had lodged a report at Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar wherein she alleged that the petitioner had ravished her fourteen years old daughter. On the basis of the said report, the police chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.174/2010 for offences under 363, 366 and 376/511 IPC. However, as the petitioner was a juvenile, his case was placed before the learned Board. Vide order dated 28.02.2011, the learned Board dismissed his bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan Jaipur
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that in regard to same incident for which originally FIR was registered for offence under Sections 16/54 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, another FIR for offence under Sections 61 and 63 of the Copyright Act, 1957 was also registered. 3. Maximum sentence therefore is three years. Petitioner has already been granted bail by this court in main case registered under Sections 16/54 and 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, vide order dated 20.04.2011. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.4. 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 this bail application. 5. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Ramesh Chand Tank Son of Shri Ramlal, Resident ...
Tag this Judgment!