Kaptan Singh Son Of Hukam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2224 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 229/2021

Kaptan Singh Son Of Hukam Singh, Resident Of Umari Police
Station Knchanpur District Dholpur (Raj.) At Present Petitioner
Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). (Confined In District Jail,
Dholpur)
                                                                    ----Appellant
                                   Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p.
2.      Ramdas S/o Buddhi, Resident Of Village Umari Police
        Station Kanchanpur District Dholpur (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)         :     Mr. Govind Upadhyay
For Complainant(s)       :     Mr. Yogesh Singhal
For State                :     Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

                         Judgment / Order

09/03/2021

1. Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated

13.01.2021 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Dholpur ,

whereby, bail application filed by the appellant under Section 439

Cr.P.C. was rejected.

2. F.I.R. No.93/2020 was registered at Police Station

Kannchanpur, Dholpur for offence under Sections 420, 365 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that there is a

delay of almost seven months in lodging of FIR. Appellant is not

named in the FIR. There is no allegation against the appellant in

the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, after

an inordinate delay, additional statement was recorded and

(2 of 2) [CRLAS-229/2021]

appellant has been made an accused. It is also contended that

appellant is a sixty year old man, who has been made an accused

as his son is also accused in this case.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the appeal. It is contended that there is extra-

judicial confession of the appellant

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

appellant, I deem it proper to allow the appeal.

7. The order dated 13.01.2021 is quashed and set aside and

the appeal is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-

appellant shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only)

together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty

Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the

stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to

which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /47

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)