Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KRISHAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Decided
28 August 2018
Judges listed
R. BANUMATHI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 869 ยท 2018 INSC 756

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 869, margin F

2

This appeal arises out of an order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 in which the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal of the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial court for de novo trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was not examined before the trial court.

p. 869, margin F

3

We have heard Mr. Tripurari Rai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicantprosecutrix and Mr. Anish Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

p. 869, margin G

4

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the High Court while considering the bail application in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3953 of 2015 filed by one Satish, even without issuing notice to the appellant herein who was acquitted by the trial court on the ground of absence of evidence, chose to set aside the order of acquittal. It was further submitted that order of acquittal was recorded by the trial court after a full-fledged trial and while so setting aside the acquittal the High Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

p. 870, margin A

5

We find force in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. At this juncture, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the applicant-prosecutrix, has submitted that against the order of acquittal of the appellant, the prosecutrix has also filed an appeal i.e. S.B. Crl. Misc. Application NO.198 of 2016 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.802 of 2016 which is stated to be pending before the High Court.

p. 870, margin B

6

In such view of the matter and since opportunity has not been afforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

p. 870, margin C

7

We request the High Court to afford sufficient opportunity to the appellant herein in S.B. Crl. Appeal No.802 of 2016 and to the prosecutrix while considering the matter afresh and decide the same expeditiously in accordance with law.

p. 870, margin D