Allowed

Dharm Singh S/O Shri Diwan Singh B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2019CRLMB/6566/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It held that conflicting statements from injured witnesses regarding who caused head injuries, despite the recovery of a weapon from the petitioner, created a version of doubt, justifying bail upon furnishing sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties bond of Rs.25,000/- each.

Dharm Singh S/O Shri Diwan Singh B/C Gurjar… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6566/2019

¶3

Dharm Singh S/o Shri Diwan Singh B/c Gurjar, R/o Akbarpur Police Station Kaman Distt. Bharatpur At Present In Sub Jail Deeg Distt. Bharatpur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. S.R. Surana, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Chitrank Sharma

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶9

Order

¶10

20/08/2019

¶11

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶12

F.I.R. No.15/2019 was registered at Police Station Kaman, District Bharatpur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341 and 302 IPC.

¶13

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the allegation is of causing injury on the head of the deceased and on as many as six persons i.e. Dharam Singh, Bhagat Singh, Kumer Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Narayan Singh and Pradeep. It is contended that only one injury has been sustained by the deceased on his parietal region.

¶14

My attention has been drawn to the statement recorded

¶15

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-6566/2019]

¶16

under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the injured witnesses who have leveled allegations with regard to causing injury on head of different persons.

¶17

5 Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on AIR 1972 SC 2462 Ram Lal vs Delhi Administration, wherein as per the

¶18

evidence two persons gave lathi blows on the head of the deceased. There was no evidence as to which of the injury was caused by the assailant. Apex Court gave benefit of doubt to the assailant.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that one of the persons named as the assailant who has caused injury on the head is absconding. It is contended that sabbal has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The blow has been given by sabbal. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on State of Orrissa vs. Mahimananda Mishra, 2018(10) SCC 516, Balwan & Ors. Vs State of Haryana, 2014(13) SCC 560 and Akhtar & Ors. Vs State of Uttaranchal, 2009(13) SCC 722 .

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

From the charge-sheet, it is apparent that injured witness i.e. Harbhajan has stated that Bhagat Singh,Dharam Singh Narayan Singh and Pradeep gave blow with the sabbal on the head of deceased Leela. Satto who is the other witness has also stated that Bhagat Singh and Dharam Singh gave blow with the subble on the head of Leela, Bhagwan Singh and Kumer Singh also gave blow on the head of Leela. In the initial statement of

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CRLMB-6566/2019]

¶24

Satto she leveled allegations against three persons who were causing injury on head of the deceased.

¶25

Thus, the injury caused on head is assigned to Bhagat Singh, Dharam Singh, Kumer Singh and Bhagwan Singh by Sukhram and by Harbhajan head injury is assigned to Bhagat Singh, Dharam Singh, Narayan and Pradeep. Satto has assigned head injury to Bhagat Singh, Dharam Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Kumer Singh. Thus, merely because there is recovery of sabbal it cannot be said that injury is caused by sabbal which was recovered from the petitioner. There being different versions of the prosecution witnesses and the injury being assigned to many persons, I deem it proper to allow the bail application to the petitioner.

¶26

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes 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 he 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.

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶28

HEENA/10

Dharm Singh S/O Shri Diwan Singh B/C Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharm Singh S/O Shri Diwan Singh B/C Gurjar 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pitamber Harwani Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Vishnu Jaipal Vs Inspector General Regi Ors.

Hari Singh S/O Failan Singh B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Mittal Vs Bhivaram and Anr.

Babulal S/O Shri Pokharram B/C Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rampal S/O Girdhari Lal by Caste Repswal (Jat) Vs State of Rajasthan