Dismissed

Sanna @ Sarnam @ Ramsharan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2018CRLAS/1185/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan proceedings (Coram: Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Sabina), in an appeal filed pursuant to Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, addressed the appellant's petition for regular bail. The court noted the appellant's detention and the complaints of witnesses regarding his involvement in a dispute leading to the death of Phool Singh. The court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The petition for regular bail was dismissed and the appellant remained in custody.

Sanna @ Sarnam @ Ramsharan Vs State of Rajasthan through… — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1185/2018

¶3

Sanna @ Sarnam @ Ramsharan S/o Shri Sahdev, B/c Thakur , R/o Village Barshala, Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur Raj.. At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dushyant Jain Adv. For State : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, P.P. For Complainant : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal Adv.

¶8

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶9

Judgment

¶10

07/08/2018

¶11

Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A (2) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 105/2017 registered at Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur, for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3-2 (5) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶12

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 17.06.2017. Appellant is not named in the FIR and has been falsely involved in this case by the complainant at the instance of the villagers.

¶13

Learned State counsel who is assisted by the counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has opposed the petition and has submitted that the appellant was last seen in the company of the

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLAS-1185/2018]

¶16

deceased by witnesses Ramvir, Raghunath and Rajendra. As per witness Ramvir, appellant was fighting with the deceased and the said witness had pacified them and had got busy with the marriage celebrations going on in his family.

¶17

Present case relates to murder of Phool Singh. Case rests on circumstantial evidence. Although, appellant is not named in the FIR, but during investigation of the case, statements of witnesses were recorded who had last seen the deceased in the company of the appellant. As per the witness Ramvir, some dispute/fight was going on between the deceased and the petitioner.

¶18

Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the appellant, no ground for grant of bail to him is made out.

¶19

Dismissed.

¶20

S.Kumawat/66

Sanna @ Sarnam @ Ramsharan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanna @ Sarnam @ Ramsharan v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Samundar S/O Shri Parsadi B/C Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kailash and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Amar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shafik Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Devendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Intzaar Ali and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp