CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench(2009) 02 SC CK 0208

Dhuk Singh vs State of Rajasthan and Another

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 9 February 2009 · Citation: (2009) AIRSCW 4012 : (2009) AIRSCW 3712 : (2009) 3 JT 510 : (2009) 1 RLW 502 : (2009) 2 SCALE 553 : (2009) 11 SCC 369 : (2009) 1 SCR 1086

HON’BLE JUDGES
Asok Kumar Ganguly, J · Arijit Pasayat, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7460 of 2007)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 443 words

Arijit Pasayat, J.

1 Leave granted.

2.

Challenge in this appeal is to the grant of bail to respondent No. 2 who had applied for bail during the pendency of the proceedings relating to FIR No. 20/2007 Police Station, Syala, District Jalore.

3.

A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur allowed the bail application. The High Court stated that the question as to whether respondent No. 2 was to be added as an accused is the subject matter of examination by the High Court, while considering the scope and a (sic) Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Code'). The High Court did not examine the case on merits and on that score alone accepted the prayer for bail. It needs to be noted that learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, had rejected the bail application on considering the nature of allegations against the present respondent No. 2.

4.

The informant had filed the present appeal questioning grant of bail to respondent No. 2. It is submitted that contrary to the view expressed by this Court in a large number of cases, without indicating any reason the order granting bail was passed. Learned Counsel for the State supported the stand of the appellant. On the contrary learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 319 Cr.P.C. was elucidated by this Court in Dharam Pal and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. 2004 (13) SCC 9 and, therefore, the High Court was justified in granting bail.

5.

The parameters to be kept in view while dealing with an application for bail have been indicated by this Court in several cases; for example Anwari Begum Vs. Sher Mohammad and Another, ; Chaman Lal Vs. State of U.P. and Another, ; Anil Kumar Tulsiyani Vs. State of U.P. and Another, and State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. v. Eslian @ Jothi Basu 2006 (9) SCC 785. It has been held that the court considering the bail application has to consider among other circumstances the following:

(i) the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant, and (iii) prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

6.

In that view of the matter we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remit the matter to it for fresh consideration. Needless to say that the High Court shall dispose of the matter by a reasoned order.

7.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.