Dismissed

Bhupendra v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2018CRLMB/7019/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application regarding double murder charges, the High Court rejected arguments of false implication and family circumstances. The bench held that the gravity of the offence and the seriousness of double murder allegations create strong cause for incarceration, dismissing the petition without expressing a final opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Bhupendra Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail No. 7019/2018

¶3

Bhupendra S/o Late Shri Ghasi Lal, aged about 20 years, B/c Kushwah, R/o Mahrawata, Police Station Kishanganj, District Baran (Raj). (At Present Confined At Distt. Jail, Baran).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA

¶10

Order

¶11

06/07/2018

¶12

The present Misc. III bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the Accused/ petitioner in the matter of FIR No. 271/2016 registered at Police Station Kishanganj, District Baran, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 04.07.2017. Thereafter, second bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 06.04.2018, thereafter, five prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court, therefore this third bail application is submitted.

¶14

He submits that petitioner is only 20 years old young boy and there is enmity between the complainant party and in-laws of

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-7019/2018] petitioner- accused, due to it petitioner-accused was implicated falsely in this matter. He submits that eye witnesses allege that petitioner- accused inflicted sword blow on the head and back of deceased Hiralal and Raju respectively while Investigating Officer recovered a stick only. Further, from the injury report and postmortem report, there is no injury of sword on the hand of Hiralal and on the back of deceased- Raju, therefore ocular evidence don’t corroborate with medical evidence.

¶16

He further submits that father of petitioner has already expired and petitioner is only person in his family to look after his old mother, petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2016, therefore he may be released on bail.

¶17

Per contra learned Public Prosecutor submits that earlier second bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on merits on 06.04.2018. He submits that petitioner is named in FIR, in statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in Court statements and there is allegation regarding committing murder of Hiralal and Raju, as such it is a double murder case.

¶18

He further submits that at the stage of deciding bail application, appreciation of evidence is not required. He submits that at this stage it cannot be said that petitioner is implicated falsely in this matter, therefore this third bail application may be dismissed.

¶19

I have considered the submissions made at Bar.

¶20

Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence specially the fact that since there is charge

¶21

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-7019/2018]

¶22

of double murder against the petitioner-accused with other co-

¶23

accused, therefore considering the seriousness of allegations against the present petitioner, and without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner.

¶24

Consequently, the third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶25

However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order shall not effect the trial of the case and learned trial Court is also directed to conclude the trial of the case expeditiously.

¶26

(BANWARI LAL SHARMA),J

¶27

S. Kumawat/46

Bhupendra v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhupendra v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

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

Swyam Prakash Swami Vs Jagdish

Gyrasi Lal Agarwal Vs Thakur Ji Shri Gopal Ji

Hardev Meena and Ors. Vs a D J Jaipur and Ors.

Bhura@Dharmendra and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pehalwan@Pahlad Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp