CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Amarchand vs State of Rajasthan And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 10 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 RAJ CK 0220

HON’BLE JUDGES
Dinesh Mehta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 120B, 201, 302, 364 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Interim Bail Application No. 1775 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 458 words
1.

Accused-petitioner, facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 302, 364, 201 read with Section 120B IPC in Sessions Case No.97/2011, pending before Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (POA) Cases Court, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), has laid this application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking interim bail. The sessions case aforesaid against him is founded on FIR No.RC/7(S)/2011-CBI/SC-1/New Delhi. In the application, seeking interim bail for this duration, it is inter-alia averred that the petitioner is required to attend marriage ceremonies of his son.

2.

Mr. Khileree, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, submits that marriage of petitioner's son - Sahil is going to be solemnised on 25.02.2020 at Delhi and as such his presence is required and he has to ensure the marital arrangements. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court vide order dated 31.01.2020 while refusing to grant interim bail to the petitioner has permitted him to attend the marriage ceremony of his son from 24.02.2020 to 27.02.2020 in police custody; which is insufficient.

3.

Mr. Khileree further pointed out that as per the order of the Court below, expenses of police custody are to be borne by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is behind the bars for last eight years and coming from poor background, he has no means to meet the security charges/expenses.

4.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to grant interim bail to the petitioner as prayed. The trial Court has already passed just order on 31.01.2020 and granted limited indulgence to the petitioner from 24.02.2020 to 27.02.2020, permitting him to attend the marriage ceremony of his son.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by trial Court is modified and the period granted to the petitioner to attend the marriage is extended from 23.02.2020 to 29.02.2020 in place of 24.02.2020 to 27.02.2020. Further, it is ordered that Jail Authority and Police Authority shall not recover the charges of providing police custody from the petitioner, while he attends the marriage ceremony of his son in police custody from 23.02.2020 to 29.02.2020. The petitioner shall be required to report before the concerned Jail Authorities on 29.02.2020.

6.

Other conditions enumerated in the order dated 31.01.2020 passed by the trial Court shall remain undisturbed.

7.

Needless to observe that the aforesaid stipulation of not requiring the petitioner to bear the security charges/expenses of police assistance is made looking to the penury of the petitioner, who hails from lower starta of society and is behind the bars for last 8 years, having practically no means to meet the security charges/expenses.

8.

The interim bail application is accordingly disposed of.