{"id":25152,"date":"2004-09-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-09-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004"},"modified":"2015-10-26T22:42:28","modified_gmt":"2015-10-26T17:12:28","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1167 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Rajasthan\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nIkbal Hussen\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/09\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>State of Rajasthan questions legality of the judgment rendered by<br \/>\na learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur holding<br \/>\nthat the trial against the respondent for alleged commission of<br \/>\noffences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of the<br \/>\nIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the &#8216;IPC&#8217;), could not be continued<br \/>\nindefinitely. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,<br \/>\nGulabpura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan directed acquittal of the respondent who<br \/>\nwas facing trial for alleged commission of aforesaid offences. The<br \/>\nalleged incident took place on 28th March, 1995.  The trial court closed<br \/>\nthe evidence in the light of the decision of this Court in Raj Deo<br \/>\nSharma vs. State of Bihar (1998 (7) SCC 507).\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court as noted above, observed that the trial cannot<br \/>\nproceed indefinitely and the trial had not come to an end for a period<br \/>\nof six years, and, therefore, learned Additional Chief Judicial<br \/>\nMagistrate was justified in closing the evidence and directing<br \/>\nacquittal.\n<\/p>\n<p>The correctness of the decisions in two Raj Deo Sharma&#8217;s cases<br \/>\ni.e. Raj Deo Sharma vs. State of Bihar (1998 (7) SCC 507) and (1999 (7)<br \/>\nSCC 604) and that of &#8220;Common Cause&#8221; a Registered Society vs. Union of<br \/>\nIndia and Ors.  (1996 (6) SCC 775) and (1996 (4) SCC 33) was considered<br \/>\nby seven-judge Bench in <a href=\"\/doc\/516669\/\">P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka<\/a><br \/>\n(2002(4) SCC 578). In the said case after considering the various<br \/>\ndecisions it was held as follows :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;For all the foregoing reasons, we are of the<br \/>\nopinion that in Common Cause case (I) &#8211; (1996 (4) SCC<br \/>\n33 : 1996 SC (Cri) 589) [as modified in Common Cause<br \/>\n(II)  (1996 (6)  SCC 775 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 42) and Raj<br \/>\nDeo Sharma (I)- (1998 (7) SCC 507 : 1998 SCC (Cri)<br \/>\n1692 and (II)- (1999 (7) SCC 604 : 1999 SCC (Cri)<br \/>\n1324) the Court could not have prescribed periods of<br \/>\nlimitation beyond which the trial of a criminal case<br \/>\nor a criminal proceeding cannot continue and must<br \/>\nmandatorily be closed followed by an order acquitting<br \/>\nor discharging the accused.  In conclusion we hold:\n<\/p>\n<p>(1) The dictum in A.R. Antulay case  (1992<br \/>\n(1) SCC 225 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 93) is correct<br \/>\nand still holds the field.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2) The propositions emerging from Article<br \/>\n21 of the Constitution and expounding the<br \/>\nright to speedy trial laid down as guidelines<br \/>\nin A.R. Antulay case (supra) adequately take<br \/>\ncare of right to speedy trial.  We uphold and<br \/>\nreaffirm the said propositions.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3) The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay<br \/>\ncase are not exhaustive but only illustrative.<br \/>\nThey are not intended to operate as hard and<br \/>\nfast rules or to be applied like a straitjacket<br \/>\nformula.  Their applicability would depend on<br \/>\nthe fact situation of each case.  It is<br \/>\ndifficult to foresee all situations and no<br \/>\ngeneralization can be made.\n<\/p>\n<p>(4)  It is neither advisable, nor feasible,<br \/>\nnor judicially permissible to draw or<br \/>\nprescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all<br \/>\ncriminal proceedings.  The time-limits or bars<br \/>\nof limitation prescribed in the several<br \/>\ndirections made in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo<br \/>\nSharma case (I) and (II) could not have been<br \/>\nso prescribed or drawn and are not good law.<br \/>\nThe criminal courts are not obliged to<br \/>\nterminate trial or criminal proceedings merely<br \/>\non account of lapse of time, as prescribed by<br \/>\nthe directions made in Common Cause case (I),<br \/>\nRaj Deo Sharma case (I) and (II).  At the most<br \/>\nthe periods of time prescribed in those<br \/>\ndecisions can be taken by the courts seized of<br \/>\nthe trial or proceedings to act as reminders<br \/>\nwhen they may be persuaded to apply their<br \/>\njudicial mind to the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof the case before them and determine by<br \/>\ntaking into consideration the several relevant<br \/>\nfactors as pointed out in A.R. Antulay case<br \/>\nand decide whether the trial or proceedings<br \/>\nhave become so inordinately delayed as to be<br \/>\ncalled oppressive and unwarranted.  Such time-<br \/>\nlimits cannot and will not by themselves be<br \/>\ntreated by any court as a bar to further<br \/>\ncontinuance of the trial or proceedings and as<br \/>\nmandatorily obliging the court to terminate<br \/>\nthe same and acquit or discharge the accused.\n<\/p>\n<p>(5) The criminal courts should exercise their<br \/>\navailable powers, such as those under Sections<br \/>\n309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal<br \/>\nProcedure to effectuate the right to speedy<br \/>\ntrial.  A watchful and diligent trial Judge can<br \/>\nprove to be a better protector of such right<br \/>\nthan any guidelines.  In appropriate case,<br \/>\njurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482<br \/>\nCr.P.C.  and Articles 226 and 227 of the<br \/>\nConstitution can be invoked seeking appropriate<br \/>\nrelief or suitable directions.\n<\/p>\n<p>This is an appropriate occasion to remind the<br \/>\nUnion of India and the State Governments of<br \/>\ntheir constitutional obligation to strengthen<br \/>\nthe judiciary  quantitatively and qualitatively<br \/>\n by providing requite funds, manpower and<br \/>\ninfrastructure.  We hope and trust that the<br \/>\nGovernment shall act.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It was held that the dictum of the Constitution Bench in<br \/>\nA.R.Antulay&#8217;s case (supra) continues to hold the field and bars of<br \/>\nlimitation introduced in Common Cause (I) and Common Cause (II) and Raj<br \/>\nDeo Sharma (I) and Raj Deo Sharma (II) cannot be sustained as these<br \/>\ndecisions were rendered by two or three Hon&#8217;ble judges and run counter<br \/>\nto the view expressed by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay&#8217;s case<br \/>\n(supra). It was held as follows.\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The Constitution makers were aware of the Sixth<br \/>\nAmendment provisions in the Constitution of the USA<br \/>\nproviding in express terms the right of an &#8216;accused&#8217; to be<br \/>\ntried speedily.  Yet this was not incorporated in the Indian<br \/>\nConstitution.  So long as <a href=\"\/doc\/1857950\/\">A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras<\/a><br \/>\n(1950 SCR 88) held the field in India, only such speedy<br \/>\ntrial was available as the provisions of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure made possible.  No proceeding could ever<br \/>\nbe quashed on the ground of delay.  On a proper grievance<br \/>\nbeing made, or suo moto, court could always ensure speedy<br \/>\ntrial by suitable directions to the trial court including<br \/>\norders of transfer to a court where expeditious disposal<br \/>\ncould be ensured.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWith the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1766147\/\">Maneka Gandhi v.<br \/>\nUnion of India<\/a> (1978 (1) SCC 248) Article 21 received a new<br \/>\ncontent.  Procedure relating to punishment of crime must be<br \/>\nfair, just and reasonable. <a href=\"\/doc\/1373215\/\">Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home<br \/>\nSecretary, State of Bihar<\/a> (1980 (1) SCC 81) and later<br \/>\ndecisions have spelt out a so-called &#8216;Right to Speedy Trial&#8217;<br \/>\nfrom Article 21.  It is both a convenient and self-<br \/>\nexplanatory description.  But it does not follow that every<br \/>\nincident attaching to the Sixth Amendment right ipso facto<br \/>\nis to be read into Indian Law.  In the USA, the right is<br \/>\nexpress and unqualified.  In India it is only a component of<br \/>\njustice and fairness.  Indian courts have to reconcile<br \/>\njustice and fairness to the accused with many other<br \/>\ninterests which are compelling and paramount.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tArticle 21 cannot be so construed as to make mockery<br \/>\nof directive principles and another even more fundamental<br \/>\nright i.e., the right of equality in Article 14.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe concept of delay must be totally different<br \/>\ndepending on the class and character of the accused and the<br \/>\nnature of his offence, the difficulties of a private<br \/>\nprosecutor and the leanings of the government.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe court must respect legislative policy unless the<br \/>\npolicy is unconstitutional.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tStatutes of limitation, limited though they are on<br \/>\nthe criminal side, do not apply to :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(a) serious offences punishable with more than 3<br \/>\nyears imprisonment;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(b) all economic offences.\n<\/p>\n<p>Corruption by high public servants is not protected<br \/>\nfor both these reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tRight to speedy trial is not a right not to be tried.<br \/>\nSecondly it only creates an obligation on the prosecutor to<br \/>\nbe ready to proceed to trial within a reasonable time;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThat is to say without any delay attributable to his<br \/>\ndeviousness or culpable negligence.\n<\/p>\n<p>The actual length of time taken by a trial is wholly<br \/>\nirrelevant.  In each individual case the court has to<br \/>\nperform a balancing act.  It has to weigh a variety of<br \/>\nfactors, some telling in favour of the accused, some in<br \/>\nfavour of the prosecutor and others wholly neutral.  Every<br \/>\ndecision has to be ad-hoc.  It is neither permissible nor<br \/>\npossible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time.<br \/>\nThe U.S. Supreme Court has refused to do so.  Similar view<br \/>\nis taken by our court.  There is no precedent warranting<br \/>\nsuch judicial legislation.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe following kinds of delay are to be totally<br \/>\nignored in giving effect to the plea of denial of speedy<br \/>\ntrial:\n<\/p>\n<p>(A)\tDelay wholly due to congestion of the Court<br \/>\ncalendar, unavailability of judges, or other<br \/>\ncircumstances beyond the control of the prosecutor.\n<\/p>\n<p>(B) Delay caused by the accused himself not merely by<br \/>\nseeking adjournments but also by legal devices which<br \/>\nthe prosecutor has to counter.\n<\/p>\n<p>(C) Delay caused by orders, whether induced by the<br \/>\naccused or not of the court, necessitating appeals or<br \/>\nrevision or other appropriate actions or proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>(D)\t Delay caused by legitimate actions of the<br \/>\nprosecutor e.g., getting a key witness who is kept out<br \/>\nof the way or otherwise avoids process or appearance<br \/>\nor tracing a key document or securing evidence from<br \/>\nabroad.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tDelay is usually welcomed by the accused.  He<br \/>\npostpones the delay of reckoning thereby.  It may impair the<br \/>\nprosecution&#8217;s ability to prove the case against him.  In the<br \/>\nmeantime, he remains free to indulge in crimes.  An accused<br \/>\ncannot raise this plea if he has never taken steps to demand a<br \/>\nspeedy trial.  A plea that proceedings against him be quashed<br \/>\nbecause delay has taken place is not sustainable if the record<br \/>\nshows that he acquiesced in the delay and never asked for an<br \/>\nexpeditious disposal.  In India the demand rule must be<br \/>\nrigorously enforced.  No one can be permitted to complain that<br \/>\nspeedy trial was denied when he never demanded it.\n<\/p>\n<p>The core of &#8216;Speedy Trial&#8217; is protection against<br \/>\nincarceration.  An accused who has never been incarcerated<br \/>\ncan hardly complain.  At any rate, he must show some other<br \/>\nvery strong prejudice.  The right does not protect an<br \/>\naccused from all prejudicial effects caused by delay.  Its<br \/>\ncore concern is impairment of liberty.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tPossibility of prejudice is not enough.  Actual<br \/>\nprejudice has to be proved.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe plea is inexorably and inextricably mixed up with<br \/>\nthe merits of the case.  No finding of prejudice is possible<br \/>\nwithout full knowledge of facts.  The plea must first be<br \/>\nevaluated by the trial court.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> In the aforesaid background the decision of the High Court<br \/>\naffirming the acquittal of respondent cannot be maintained.  We set<br \/>\naside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court.  The trial<br \/>\nbefore the trial court shall be revived. Since the trial is pending for<br \/>\na considerable period of time, it would be appropriate for the<br \/>\nconcerned court to take up the matter on day to day basis, keeping in<br \/>\nview the mandate of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973<br \/>\n(in short the &#8220;Cr.P.C.&#8221;).\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal is accordingly allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, Prakash Prabhakar Naolekar CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1167 of 2003 PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan RESPONDENT: Ikbal Hussen DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/09\/2004 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; PRAKASH PRABHAKAR NAOLEKAR JUDGMENT: J U D G M E [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1810,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004","datePublished":"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004"},"wordCount":1810,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004","name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-09-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-26T17:12:28+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-vs-ikbal-hussen-on-8-september-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan vs Ikbal Hussen on 8 September, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}