Allowed

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2019CRLMB/10685/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application allowed. Court held that lack of eye-witnesses, non-support of prosecution by some witnesses, and non-interrogation of a key informant justified granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Narendra Singh to be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Narendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10685/2019

¶3

Narendra Singh S/o Madhu Singh, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Nearby School, Village Udat, Chakhu Police Station, District Jodhpur.

¶4

(Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Firoz Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

12/09/2019

¶13

The present 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.210/2017, Police Station Balesar, District Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 435 & 440 of the IPC.

¶14

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 16.07.2018 by this Court.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶16

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after dismissal of the first bail application of the petitioner, 10 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined. The learned counsel submits that

¶17

(2 of 3) [CRLMSB-10685/2019]

¶18

persons who were present at the hotel i.e. PW-9 Amararam and PW-10 Arjunram, have stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that the present petitioner came to their hotel. However, they have not supported the prosecution story and declared hostile.

¶19

He further submits that PW-2 Chandraprakash in his statement has stated that the present petitioner informed him on telephone at 06:00 A.M. in the morning that deceased has left him behind and went away with the Truck. Thereafter, in the night Birbalram owner of another Truck called him and said that his truck is burning inflames near Dechu. When he called the present petitioner to stay at the place of incident, he did not wait for it and went to his village. Therefore, he suspected that the petitioner is only person who burnt the Truck and murdered the deceased Guman Singh.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that there is no eye-witness of the incident. Birbalram who informed about the burning of Truck to Chandraprakash has not been interrogated by the police and his statement has not been recorded. The petitioner is behind the bars only on suspicion and there is no other evidence on record to connect the present petitioner with the offence alleged in the present case. The conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, there is no eye-witnesses to the incident and Prosecution

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMSB-10685/2019]

¶24

Witnesses PW-9 Amararam and PW-10 Arjunram having not supported the prosecution story coupled with the fact that Birbalram who informed PW-2 Chandraprakash about the burning of his Truck has not been interrogated in the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶25

Accordingly, the 2^nd bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Narendra Singh S/o Madhu Singh, shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.210/2017, Police Station Balesar, District Jodhpur provided he furnishes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶26

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶27

23-SunilS/-

Narendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Singh 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

Faglu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash Vs State of Rajasthan

Swati Paliwal Vs Neeraj @ Tejas Paliwal

Abida Bano Vs Firoz Khan

Smt. Sunder Bai Vs Shanker Lal

Rekha Vs Jairam