Partly allowed

Sanjay S/O Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Mar 2022CRLMB/1883/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court permitted withdrawal of bail application for two petitioners. For the third petitioner, who sustained a grievous injury in a cross-FIR, the court granted bail requiring a personal bond and two sureties subject to the recording of the injured victim's statement.

What did the court decide?

Bail of petitioner Vimal granted with bond and sureties; withdrawal of bail application for petitioners 1 and 2 permitted.

Sanjay S/O Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1883/2022

¶3

Sanjay S/o Kailash, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gadar Isatori Tehsil Shahabad PS Kelwara Distt. Baran Raj. (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Baran)

¶4

Hemant S/o Kailash, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gadar Isatori Tehsil Shahabad PS Kelwara Distt. Baran Raj. (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Baran)

¶5

Vimal S/o Ramdayal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gadar Isatori Tehsil Shahabad PS Kelwara Distt. Baran Raj. (At Present Confined In Distt. Jail Baran)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor Mr. Samarth Sharma, Advocate for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

¶12

Order

¶13

23/03/2022

¶14

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 239/2021 registered at Police Station Kelwara, District Baran for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 308, 325, 307 and 34 of IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the bail application on behalf of the petitioners No.1 and 2, namely Sanjay and Hemant, at this stage.

¶16

Permission, as sought for, is granted.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMB-1883/2022]

¶19

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners No.1 and 2 is dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner No.3-Vimal is behind the bars since 23.01.2022 and the allegations, levelled in the FIR, are outcome of a concocted story. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner party also lodged an FIR against the complainant, which was registered bearing No.238/2021 for the offence under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 308 of IPC. Learned counsel further submits that in cross FIR, the petitioner No.3-Vimal has also sustained injury which is grievous in nature and dangerous to life. Learned counsel further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner has no criminal antecedents. Hence, the accused-petitioner Vimal may be released on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the bail application.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

As per the rejection bail order, injury No.1 of the injured Haricharan is grievous in nature and dangerous to life, which is caused by a blunt weapon. As per recovery memo, at the instance of the petitioner No.3-Vimal one iron axe was recovered. Therefore, considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case; but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner No.3-Vimal on bail.

¶24

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1883/2022]

¶25

Accordingly, the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner No.3-Vimal under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vimal S/o Ramdayal shall be enlarged on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

However, the petitioners No.1 and 2 would be at liberty to file afresh after recording of the statement of the injured Haricharan.

¶27

(CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA),J

¶28

Ashish Kumar /17

Sanjay S/O Kailash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay S/O Kailash 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

Sunil Kumar S/O Bhomaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal S/O Shankarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Imran @ Shanu S/O Mohammad Rafiq Kureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuveer S/O Surajmal @ Surjya Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanaram S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Singh Son of Shri Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan