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

DHUK SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Decided
9 February 2009
Judges listed
ARIJIT PASAYAT (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 1086 · 2009 INSC 127
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

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. 1087, margin C

2

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

p. 1087, margin D

3

A learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan Jodhpur allowed the bail application. The High the question as to whether respondent No.2 as an accused is the subject matter of examination Court, while considering the scope and ambit of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in High Court did not examine the case on score alone accepted the prayer for bail. that learned Sessions Judge, Jalore, had application on considering the nature of allegations present respondent No.2.

p. 1087, margin E

4

The informant had filed the present grant of bail to respondent No.2. It is submitted the view expressed by this Court in a large without indicating any reason the order granting bail A 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 & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2004 (13) SCC 9) and, therefore, the High B Court was justified in granting bail.

pp. 1087–1088, margin G

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 v. Sher Mohd. (2005 (7) SCC 325), Chaman Lal v. State of U.P. (2004 (7) SCC 525), Anil Kumar Tulsiyani v. State of U.P. (2006 (9) SCC 425) and State represented by Inspector of Police, T.N. v. Es/ian @ 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.

p. 1088

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.

p. 1088, margin C

7

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. N.J. Appeal disposed of.

p. 1088, margin F