Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NITU @ ARVIND versus STATE

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NITU @ ARVIND v STATE - CRLMB Case No. 7615 of 2006 [2006] RD-RJ 3318 (22 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPL. NO.7615/2006

Nitu V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Date of order ::: December 22, 2006

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA

Mr.Dinesh Kumar Garg, for the applicant.

Mr.R.P. Kuldeep, PP for the State.

This is a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising out of FIR

No.341/2003 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur for the offence under Section 302, 201 & 34 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public

Prosecutor and perused the material / case diary made available to me during the arguments of the case..

The submission of counsel for the applicant is that in respect of the same FIR No.341/2003, trial was faced the main accused Jeetu who has been acquitted also, but the investigation was kept pending against him under

Section 173 (8) and now the accused applicant has been arrested. As per the evidence collected during investigation, the mother of the deceased has seen

Jeetu and Nitu to take the deceased from his house, which is a very weak piece of circumstantial evidence. Considering the fact of acquittal of Jeetu, the applicant be also enlarged on bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that it is not a fit case for grant of bail.

Without expressing any opinion on the aforesaid submissions on merits and demerits of the case and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant.

It is, therefore, ordered that applicant Nitu @ Arvind S/o Amar Singh shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.15,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before that Court as and when called upon to do so during pendency of the trial against him arising out of FIR No.341/2003 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur.

(PREM SHANKER ASOPA) J. ummed/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.