Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 43, 164
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Mr. R.K. Charan for the applicant. Mr. Vishnu Kachhawaha, Public Prosecutor for State. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and carefully gone through the impugned order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the fact that the prosecutrix was taken by the accused applicant on the motor-cycle and even in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she has stated that at the point of knife she was subjected to rape, I do not find it to be a fit case to extend benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application moved by the applicant under Section 43 Cr.P.C. is rejected. (SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK), J.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 43, 164.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 12 Sep 2006. The bench was BLE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.