Latest Judgments

Manish Solanki @ Bansi v. The State of Rajasthan

None has appeared on behalf of the respondent State in spite of due service of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)

Manish Solanki @ Bansi ______________________________ Appellant

v.

The State of Rajasthan _____________________________ Respondent

Criminal Appeal No(s). 137 of 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7140/2018], decided on January 24, 2019

The Order of the court was delivered by

Order

1. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent State in spite of due service of notice. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Leave granted.

3. We have perused the First Information Report as well as the charge-sheet filed. The accused appellant is in custody since 27th September, 2017. Further custody of the accused will come in the way of the conduct of the trial that will have to be held against him.

4. Taking into account the totality of the facts of the case and the period of custody suffered by the accused appellant, we are of the view that the accused appellant ought to be released on bail. Therefore, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court in connection with FIR No. 216/2017 dated 18th September, 2017 under Section 365, 394, 323, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(d), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 registered with Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.

5. The learned trial Court is free to impose appropriate condition(s) as it deems fit.

6. Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the present appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

PETITION(S) FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO(S). 7140/2018

Manish Solanki @ Bansi _____________________________ Petitioner

v.

The State of Rajasthan _____________________________ Respondent

Date : 24-01-2019 This petition was called on for hearing today.

(Before Ranjan Gogoi, C.J. and L. Nageswara Rao and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ.)

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Surabhi Sanchita, AOR

Mr. Mohit Kr. Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

ORDER

7. Leave granted.

8. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

———