Allowed

Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2021CRLMB/6179/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed by two petitioners lodged in judicial custody in a murder case, noting lack of specific allegations against them and lengthy trial duration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

….

¶4

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6179/2021.

¶5

Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan S/o Shri Surja Ram, aged 25 years, By caste Kumhar, Resident of Village Tankla, Police Station and Tehsil Khivsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

¶6

(Presently lodged in District Jail, Nagaur).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6180/2021.

¶13

Durgesh Kumar S/o Shri Surja Ram, aged 22 years, By caste Kumhar, Resident of Village Tankla, Police Station and Tehsil Khivsar, District. Nagaur (Raj.).

¶14

(Presently lodged in District Jail, Nagaur).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pradeep Shah with Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.
	Mr. Surya Prakash Sharma, for the
	complainant.

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CRLMB-6179/2021]

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

¶23

Order

¶24

18/08/2021

¶25

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 193/2020, Police Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur, registered for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 323 & 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the complainant side were the aggressors and they have committed crime against the petitioners’ side; that the incident in question took place near Bharat Gas Agency; that as per the statement of Chimna Ram (one of the eye-witness), head injury of the deceased (Guman Ram) was attributed to Surja Ram; that as per the injury report, there were two injuries; that injury No.1 was skin deep lacerated wound and injury No.2 was abrasion; that as per the postmortem report, there were 14 injuries, 8 were abrasions and remaining were bruises; that no specific allegation was levelled against the accused-petitioners and only omnibus allegations were levelled against all the accused persons; that benefit of bail was granted to Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi, Bhalla Ram and Surja Ram; that the witnesses Smt. Urma W/o Rameshwar Lal and Smt. Sayari W/o Badar Ram were independent witnesses; that as per their statement, they cannot be said to be eyewitnesses; that charge-sheet has been filed; and that the trial will

¶28

(3 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMB-6179/2021]

¶30

take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶31

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accusedpetitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that the benefit of bail was granted to the co-accused Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi on the ground that she was a lady and similarly to the other co-accused Bhalla Ram on the ground that he was 85 years old person; that the co-accused Surja Ram was not granted regular bail, he was granted interim bail. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated that injuries were caused by the accused-petitioners as per the statement of Suresh Kumar, Jeevan Ram, Sampat Ram, Akha Ram and Bablu (son of the deceased – Guman Ram); that lathies used in the incident were recovered from the present accused-petitioners, Gajendra and Durgesh. Learned counsel prayed that the benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶32

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that all the above witnesses, as mentioned by the learned counsel for the complainant, can be said to be hearsay witnesses, not the eyewitnesses.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that the head injury caused to the deceased (Guman Ram) was attributed to the co-accused Surja Ram and for remaining injuries, omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons; that no specific allegation has been levelled against the present accused-petitioners; that the benefit of bail has already been granted to the co-accused

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CRLMB-6179/2021]

¶36

persons, namely, Nojal Devi @ Nauji Devi W/o Surja Ram vide order dated 22.02.2021 (Bail Application No. 2570/2021), Bhalla Ram S/o Riddharam vide order dated 04.02.2021 (Bail Application No. 1148/2021) and Surja Ram S/o Bhalaram vide order dated 04.09.2020 (Interim Bail Application No. 9149/2020) by the coordinate Bench/s of this Court; that charge-sheet has been filed; and that further trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶37

Consequently, both the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioners, Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan S/o Surja Ram (Bail Application No. 6179/2021 ) and Durgesh Kumar S/o Surja Ram (Bail Application No. 6180/2021 ), both arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.193/2020, Police Station Khinvsar, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousad only) with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶39

9-10-Mohan/-

Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Kumar @ Shrawan 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

Mamraj Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Guneshram Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs State

Sukhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayin Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan @ Satu Vs State of Rajasthan