Allowed

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Nov 2018CRLMB/10892/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the second bail application of an accused facing trial for offences under IPC Sections 147, 148, 450, 307 read with 149 and Arms Act sections 3/27, citing a chequered investigation history and late weapon recovery.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the trial Court.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 10892/2018

¶3

Jagdish S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Dhanothi Chhoti, Teh. Rajgarh, Dist. Churu. (In Judicial Custody In Sub Jail, Rajgarh)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.R. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Tarun Dhaka. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh, PP.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA Order

¶10

27/11/2018

¶11

Accused-petitioner has laid this second bail application while facing trial for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 450, 307 read with Section 149 IPC and 3/27 of the Arms Act before Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, District Churu in Sessions Case No.19/2018. The case is founded on C.R. Case No.77/2014 of Police Station Sidhmukh (Churu).

¶12

First bail application on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on 30^th of May, 2018.

¶13

Arguing on second bail application, it is submitted by learned Senior counsel that the incident relates back to 27^th of May, 2014 and police after protracted investigation proposed negative final report in the matter in the year 2017 but, later on, investigation was handed over to CID CB and further probing the matter, CID CB has submitted charge-sheet in the matter sufficiently

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-10892/2018]

¶16

demonstrates that there are serious pitfalls in the prosecution case. It is also argued by learned Senior Counsel that some of the co-accused namely Surendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar have been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that although as per prosecution, a twelve bore gun is recovered from the petitioner but the said recovery was four years posterior to the date of incident which creates serious doubts about its nexus with the alleged offence. It is also submitted by learned Senior Counsel that since charge-sheet has been filed after a lapse of four years, completion of trial in near future is not offing is yet another factor for considering bail plea of the petitioner favourably.

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. It is argued by learned Public Prosecutor that case of the petitioner is distinguishable from other co-accused, Surendra Kumar and Vinod Kumar inasmuch as precisely allegation is against the petitioner that he has used firearms at the time of commission of offence. It is also argued by Mr. Arjun Singh that there is recovery of firearms from the petitioner.

¶18

I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record.

¶19

Taking into account the chequered history and the prolong investigation in the matter with different conclusions by the investigating agencies from time to time and the recovery of alleged weapon of offence after a lapse of four years, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept the second bail application.

¶20

Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner, Jagdish

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CRLMB-10892/2018]

¶23

S/o Amar Singh, arrested in connection with FIR No.77/2014, registered at Police Station Sidhmukh, District Churu, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(P.K. LOHRA),J

¶25

120-a.asopa/-

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

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

N.I.a.Co.Ltd. Vs Nathu Lal and Ors.

Surjan Singh Vs Manchand

Purushotam Vs Smt. Sulochana

Bharat Ram Vs State

Bhanwarlal Vs Narendra Singh

Mukesh Vs State of Rajasthan