Dismissed

Chaina Ram v. State

Rajasthan HC18 Nov 2021CRLMB/9716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejected anticipatory bail applications challenged under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Court, noting a scuffle with grievous injuries to a co-accused and pending investigation, found the case unfit for anticipatory bail but granted liberty to surrender for bail consideration by the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. rejected; liberty granted to surrender before trial court for expeditious disposal of bail application.

Chaina Ram Vs State — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9716/2021

¶3

Chaina Ram S/o Sh. Harka Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.

¶4

Mehra Ram S/o Sh. Harka Ram, Aged About 53 Years, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.

¶5

Dinesh S/o Sh. Chaina Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.

¶6

Suresh S/o Sh. Mehra Ram, Aged About 22 Years, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.

¶7

Rakesh S/o Sh. Mehra Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Village Jajiwal Bhatiyan, P.s. Banar, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State, Through Pp
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepChoudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. BR Bishnoi,AGC

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

18/11/2021

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material on record.

¶16

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with FIR No.338/2020 of Police Station Banar, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 341, 323, 324, 325 & 308/149 IPC.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 25.12.2020, there was a marriage in the family. On that occasion a bamboo tree was cut down by two women namely Kaushalya

¶18

(2 of 2)

¶19

[CRLMB-9716/2021]

¶20

and Munni Devi, so the complainant get aggressive and therefore, the incident occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the injuries, if taken on their face value, at most attract offence under Section 325 IPC and do not qualify for Section 308 IPC.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that Nimba Ram and Idan received injuries and the injuries of Idan are grievous in nature. The investigtion is yet pending.

¶22

Looking to the nature of allegations and pending investigation, particularly looking to the fact that the all the petitioners were pressent on the spot and it has also not been disputed that scuffle occurred between the parties, this Court does not find the present case fit for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶23

Accordingly, these bail applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are rejected. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to surrender before the trial court.

¶24

In case, the petitioners surrendered before the trial court, it is expected that the trial court will decide their bail application expeditiously.

¶25

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶26

101-Anshul/-

Chaina Ram v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaina Ram 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

Sanjay Vs State

Subhash Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep Vs State

Chagan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj Singh Vs State