Judgment · High Court · 2006
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON'BLE MR. SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK, J. Mr. Sandeep Sarupariya 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. In the instant case, allegation against the applicant is to the effect that he maltreated his wife. Neither she was given proper treatment by the husband nor by his family members. It is alleged that there in a Panchayat, settlement took place between the parties but subsequently she was again maltreated. In view of above, taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, 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 438 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 — s. 438.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 30 Aug 2006. The bench was BLE SATYA PRAKASH PATHAK.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.