Allowed

Vikram S/O Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Jan 2021CRLMB/737/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner in an IPC and Arms Act case. The court ordered the issue of an advisory to the IO regarding a prosecution witness's denial of being interrogated by police. This inconsistency rendered the allegations unsupported.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail under Section 439 CrPC subject to bond and compliance with conditions. Direction to trial court to seek explanation from IO regarding witness contradiction.

Vikram S/O Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No.737/2021

¶3

Vikram S/o Kaluram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vill. Bamrda Tehsil Khandela Ps Khandela Dist. Sikar (At Present Confined In Dist. Jail Sikar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	----Respondent Anil Upman
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Ramesh Choudhary,PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶9

Order

¶10

28/01/2021

¶11

This third bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC in connection with FIR No.302/2017 registered at Police Station- Khandela District Sikar for the offences under Sections 341, 302 & 120-B IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statement of Ravindra has been recorded in court and he has turned hostile.

¶13

It is on the basis of the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by Ravindra that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused as statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by Ravindra mentions of extra judicial confession of the petitioner. However, when his statement has been recorded in the court, the concerned witness Ravindra has stated on oath that he was never interrogated by police and police never recorded his statement. In

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CRLMB-737/2021]

¶16

view thereof learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ought to be released on bail.

¶17

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶18

Question which arises before this court is whether the statement made in the court stating “there was no interrogation conducted and no statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded” can be accepted as it is and whether the matter should be left at that or some followup action should be taken in such matters by the court.

¶19

In my opinion, if any witness states in the court that he was never interrogated and he had not given any statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the police while the alleged statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is made as a part of charge-sheet filed by the police, then there can be only two possibilities; firstly the said witness is not speaking truth before the court or secondly that I.O. has messed up the investigation and has created false witness for the purpose of filing of charge-sheet which has resulted in prosecution of all persons who have been made accused in the charge-sheet.

¶20

It is a serious situation which affects the entire criminal judicial process. Such matters should not be left casually by the concerned court and appropriate action is required to be taken to ascertain the truth.

¶21

In the present case as the allegation against the petitioner has not been supported by concerned witness, without commenting further on merits of the case, he deserves to be granted bail and accordingly he is granted bail.

¶22

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-737/2021]

¶23

Therefore, this third bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused petitioner Vikram S/o Kaluram shall be released on bail under Section 439 CrPC in connection with aforesaid FIR provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate with the stipulation that he shall comply with all the conditions laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

¶24

However, before closing the matter, the learned trial court dealing with the trial is directed to issue necessary directions to the concerned Superintendent of Police to issue advisory to the Investigating Officer who had filed the charge-sheet to submit a further report/ explanation relating to the statement made by the witness Ravindra and place it before the court for final adjudication of the case.

¶25

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶26

ashu /14

Vikram S/O Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram S/O Kaluram 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

Chandraveer Singh S/O Shri Ramgopal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Pradeep Singh S/O Late Shri Jaipal Singh Vs the Jaipur Development Authority

Mukesh Kumar Yadav Son of Late Shri Bhanwarlal Yadav Vs Director General of Police

Ravi Kumar Verma S/O Shri Lakshman Prasad Verma Vs the Union of India

Shantun Kumar S/O Shri Karanvir Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jai Ram Jat S/O Shri Khyali Ram Vs State of Rajasthan