Supreme Court of India
KRISHAN KUMAR versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. on 28 August 2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 869
KRISHAN KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 1088 of 2018)
AUGUST 28, 2018
[R. BANUMATHI AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Criminal Law – By impugned order, High Court set aside theorder of acquittal of appellant and remitted the matter to trial courtfor denovo trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was notexamined before the trial court – Grievance of appellant was thatthe impugned order was passed by High Court while consideringbail application by another person and that too without issuingnotice to the appellant – Held: Since no opportunity of hearingwas afforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside andmatter is remitted to High Court for fresh consideration – Appealdisposed of.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1088 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2015 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. BailApplication No. 3953 of 2015.
Vikrant Yadav, Tripurari Rai, Piyush Kant Roy, M. C. Dhingra,Anish Maheshwari, Yunus Malik, Milind Kumar, Abhishek Gupta, Advs.for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 24.08.2015 of the HighCourt of Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail ApplicationNo.3953 of 2015 in which the High Court has set aside the order ofacquittal of the appellant and remitted the matter back to the trial courtfor de novo trial only on the ground that the prosecutrix was not examinedbefore the trial court.
3. We have heard Mr. Tripurari Rai, learned counsel appearingfor the appellant, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant-prosecutrix and Mr. Anish Maheshwari, learned counsel for therespondent-State.
869
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
A4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the HighCourt while considering the bail application in S.B. Criminal Misc. BailApplication No.3953 of 2015 filed by one Satish, even without issuingnotice to the appellant herein who was acquitted by the trial court on theground of absence of evidence, chose to set aside the order of acquittal.It was further submitted that order of acquittal was recorded by the trialBcourt after a full-fledged trial and while so setting aside the acquittal theHigh Court should have given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
5. We find force in the submission of learned counsel for theappellant. At this juncture, Mr. Abhishek Gupta, learned counselappearing for the applicant-prosecutrix, has submitted that against theCorder of acquittal of the appellant, the prosecutrix has also filed an appeali.e. S.B. Crl. Misc. Application NO.198 of 2016 in S.B. Criminal AppealNo.802 of 2016 which is stated to be pending before the High Court.
6. In such view of the matter and since opportunity has not beenafforded to the appellant, the impugned order is set aside and the matterDis remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration. The appeal isaccordingly disposed of.
7. We request the High Court to afford sufficient opportunity tothe appellant herein in S.B. Crl. Appeal No.802 of 2016 and to theprosecutrix while considering the matter afresh and decide the sameEexpeditiously in accordance with law.
Devika Gujral Appeal disposed of.
F
G
H