Allowed

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2019CRLAS/221/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal appeal against the rejection of bail. It quashed the impugned order and directed the release of the appellants on bail while furnishing personal bonds and sureties to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the Special Judge is quashed and set-aside. Accused appellants are directed to be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sure

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal Gurjar Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 221/2019

¶3

Manraj S/o Shri Heeralal Gurjar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vill. Hathdoli Ps Bonli Dist. Sawaimadhopur At Present In Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur

¶4

Rajesh S/o Shri Prabhulal Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vill. Hathdoli Ps Bonli Dist. Sawaimadhopur At Present In Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur

¶5

Pukhraj S/o Shri Kanhaiyalal Gurjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vill. Hathdoli Ps Bonli Dist. Sawaimadhopur At Present In Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur

¶6

Lokendra Singh @ Bhursa S/o Shri Lekhraj Singh Rajput, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Vill. Hathdoli Ps Bonli Dist. Sawaimadhopur At Present In Dist. Jail Sawaimadhopur

¶7

----Appellants

¶8

Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Raj. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Biri Singh Sinsinwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. H.S. Sinsinwar & Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore For State : Mr. Arvind Bhadu, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman with Mr. R.K. Gouttam

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

14/03/2019

¶12

Appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal aggrieved by order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Sawaimadhopur, whereby bail application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[CRLAS-221/2019]

¶15

F.I.R. No.44/2018 registered at Police Station Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur for offence under Section 147, 148, 149 & 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (A) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the appellants that appellants earlier preferred an Appeal which was allowed by this Court on 12.07.2018 and bail was granted to the appellants. Complainant approached the Apex Court and Apex Court vide order dated 13.12.2018, granted Leave and set-aside the order passed by this Court. Accused were permitted to renew their prayer for bail, in case the charges were framed by the Trial Court. Charges have now been framed and appellants applied for bail before the Court below, which stands rejected.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the appellants that no overt act is assigned to the appellants. As per the statement of witnesses, the deceased along with his son and Police Personnel went to the spot where illegal mining of Bajri was being done. A JCB was stopped and window glass panes were broken, son of deceased then drove the JCB. As per the prosecution’s version, the appellants tried to stop the JCB and attacked the Mining Team. The Mining Team tried to fled from the spot, where one of the Police Personnel informed the Mining Team that the Sarpanch is not in the Jeep. When the team returned to the spot, they found the Sarpanch lying on the ground.

¶18

It is contended that statement of son of deceased has been recorded. As per their statement, the injury on head was caused by Man Singh Gurjar. It is contended that the allegation is that 15 to 20 persons attacked the deceased. No injury has been sustained by son of deceased who was with the deceased at the time of the alleged incident. It is argued that probably the

¶19

(3 of 4)

¶20

[CRLAS-221/2019]

¶21

deceased fell from the Jeep when the Mining Team was running away from the spot.

¶22

It is also contended that no case of illegal mining has been registered against the appellants.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the present Criminal Appeal. Counsel for the complainant contends that deceased brought the fact of illegal mining to the notice of the Mining Department. Officials of Mining Department in connivance with the miners, eliminated the deceased.

¶24

It is contended that free and fair investigation has not been done by the Police and complainant would be moving to the High Court for getting the matter investigated by an independent Agency.

¶25

It is contended that nephew of one of the accused has threatened the witnesses for which a separate F.I.R. has been lodged.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

No overt act is assigned to the present appellants. As per the statement of son of deceased, the injury on head was caused by Man Singh Gurjar. As per the statement, it is also revealed that window glass panes of the JCB were broken. As to why the appellants accompanied the Mining Team and took law in their own hand, is not clear from perusal of the chargesheet. There are as many as 45 witnesses in the case and proceedings under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. is pending, hence, conclusion of trial is bound to take time.

¶28

Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the appellants, I deem it proper to allow the present Criminal Appeal.

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CRLAS-221/2019]

¶31

The order dated 24.01.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Swaimadhopur is quashed and set-aside and this appeal is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused appellant shall be released on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court by fax/email today itself with a direction to serve a photostat copy of the same to the appellants and an additional copy of this order be also sent to the concerned Court by ordinary process.

¶33

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶34

Amit/17

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manraj S/O Shri Heeralal Gurjar 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

Vijendra Singh S/O Khyaliram B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Narendra Singh S/O Hari Singh B/C Rajput Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Nadeem Son of Gafoor Ahmed Alias Abdul Gaffor, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumari Hemant Kanwar D/O Shri Mahendra Singh Vs Mahendra Singh S/O Shri Man Singh

Anup Singh S/O Shri Ratan Singh B/C Jat Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Padam Prakash Khandaka Vs Firm Raj Ratan Financial Cor and Ors.