Allowed

Chetan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Aug 2021CRLMB/9873/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to two petitioners charged with murder under Sections 302/34 IPC. The Court allowed bail primarily because a co-accused facing identical allegations had already been granted bail, and anticipated delays in the trial necessitate release, without commenting on the case merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each subject to appearance before Trial Court.

Chetan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

¶2

…..

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 10137/2021.

¶4

Aidan Ram @ Adu Ram S/o Jasa Ram, aged about 31 years, resident of Govindpura, Danwara, Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur.

¶5

(At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9873/2021.

¶12

Chetan Ram S/o Sh. Deepa Ram, age about 30 years, resident of Kelawa Khurd, Karwar, Tehsil Bawri, District Jodhpur (Raj.). (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan through PP

¶16

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Devendra Mahalana. Mr. K.R. Saharan. Mr. Vinod Sharma.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudhir Tak, PP. Mr. Jodha Ram Choudhary, for the complainant.

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order

¶18

24/08/2021

¶19

Both 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. 49/2021, Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur, registered for the offences under Sections 341 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-10137/2021]

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners stated that the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the co-accused Tila Ram are similar/identical; that the co-accused Tilaram has been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 20.07.2021; that after a detailed discussion, benefit of bail has been granted to the co-accused Tilaram on the ground that as per statements of the eye-witnesses, i.e., Pemaram and Ratnaram, the deceased (Shravaanram) died due to head injuries sustained as a result of the collusion with an unknown truck; that the death of deceased (Shravaanram) has not been the consequence of fighting with the accused-petitioners; that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accusedpetitioners.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have seriously opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant stated that as per the prosecution, quarrel has been taken place between the deceased and the present accusedpetitioners and as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries but not in a position to controvert the fact that as per the injury report, injuries caused to the deceased in quarrel were sufficient to cause his death and benefit of bail to the co-accused Tilaram has been granted by observing that the deceased was died being hit by an unknown truck.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that after a detailed discussion,

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

[CRLMB-10137/2021]

¶28

benefit of bail has already been granted in favour of the coaccused Tilaram S/o Nimbaram by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 20.07.2021 (Bail Application No. 7840/2021) on the ground that the deceased (Shravaanram) was died as he was hit by an unknown truck; that the allegations levelled against the present petitioners are similar/identical to that of co-accused Tilaram; 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.

¶29

Consequently, both the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner, Aidan Ram @ Adu Ram S/o Jasa Ram (Bail Application No.10137/2021) and Chetan Ram S/o Deepa Ram (Bail Application No.9873/2021), both arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 49/2021, Police Station Khedapa, District Jodhpur, 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 Thousand 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.

¶30

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J

¶31

47-48-Mohan/-

Chetan Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan Ram 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

Rajuram Vs State

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh Shailendra Singh Vs State

Mukesh @ Bablu Vs State

Manoj @ Vinod Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Shahid Mansoori @ Shad Khan Vs State