Dismissed

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman v. State

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2020CRLMB/3022/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of a bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. rejecting bail due to the gravity of offences and lack of substantial change in circumstances, allowing a fresh application only after recording witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; petitioner may file fresh application after recording complete statements of all eye witnesses.

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman Vs State — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 3022/2020

¶3

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman S/o Kaluram, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Village Ekalkhori, Police Station Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged At Central Jail Jodhpur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State, Through P.P.

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vineet Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP Mr. L.R. Bishnoi, for complainant

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶9

Order

¶10

06/07/2020

¶11

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.236/2015, Police Station Osian District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 323 in the alternate 323/149, 324 in the alternate 324/149, 325 in the alternate 325/149, 302 in the alternate 302/149 IPC.

¶12

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

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that charge sheet has been filed. Benefit of bail was granted to the co-accused Sahi Ram vide order dated 07.01.2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.56/2020. He further stated that the allegation

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-3022/2020]

¶16

on the petitioner was the same. Therefore, benefit of bail may also be granted to the petitioner.

¶17

On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail and stated that in charge sheet, statement of PW-1, there are clear allegation against the accused-petitioner. Therefore, bail should not be granted.

¶18

As per the order in the Court file, with regard to the second bail application, challan has been filed before that application. There was no substantial change in circumstances, even the statement of PW-1 is incomplete.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offences, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.

¶20

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶21

However, petitioner can file fresh bail application after the statements of all the three eye witnesses.

¶22

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶23

1-Arvind/-

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hadman Ram @ Hanuman v. State

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

Narpat Singh @ Nepal Singh Vs State

Lokendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan-State

Jenual Abideen Vs State of Rajasthan

Rupa Ram Vs State

Kumbha Ram Vs State

Jitendra @ Jeetu @ Gabbar @ Rahul Vs State