Dismissed

Daulatram S/O Shri Ramkaran v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Apr 2022CRLMB/4011/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed two bail applications. The court held that due to the proximity of time and place between the deceased being last seen with the petitioners and the discovery of the body, along with forensic evidence of blood on seized clothes, bail was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. by the accused-petitioners are dismissed.

Daulatram S/O Shri Ramkaran Vs State of… — 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. 4011/2022

¶3

Daulatram S/o Shri Ramkaran, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Paniyala Police Station Paniyala District Jaipur ( Rajasthan) (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Jail, Kotputali Jaipur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5931/2022 Satyaveer Son Of Shri Amichand, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Paniyala Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur (Raj.) ( At Present In Sub Jail Kotputali)

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta. Mr. Manish Gupta. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Saini, PP. Mr. V.K. Jakhar.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶16

Order

¶17

26/04/2022

¶18

The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners Daulatram S/o Shri Ramkaran and Satyaveer Son Of Shri Amichand. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.24/2022 registered

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLMB-4011/2022]

¶21

at Police Station Paniyala, Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 201 IPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence even for the name sake against the petitioner, no eye witness is available on record and the case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence which is neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. He further submits that the recovery of blood stained clothes is nothing but a farce.

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶24

Considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. The deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioner for which evidence is available on record. There is evidence that the accused consumed liquor and snacks from the restaurant and the place of incident is behind the restaurant. The proximity of time and place where the deceased was last seen in the company of the petitioners and his dead body was found very close to that place. Blood stained clothes of the accused have been seized and as per FSL report, human blood has been found therein, therefore at this stage of the trial, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.

¶26

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶27

PREETI VALECHA /99-100

Daulatram S/O Shri Ramkaran v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulatram S/O Shri Ramkaran 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

Akshat Jain S/O Shri Atul Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Naveen Kumar S/O Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Lekhraj Meena S/O Shri Ramlal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh S/O Shri Biradhilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Girraj S/O Shri Kailash Alias Kailash Chand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Aman Verma @ Chetan Verma Son of Raju Verma @ Rajendra Verma Vs State of Rajasthan