The High Court at Jaipur dismissed three bail applications filed by Anil, Kanaram, and Raj @ Golu in a murder case. The court found it was not a fit case to grant bail considering witness testimony and forensically proved recovery of blood-stained items.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR WASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S-6. Criminal Miscellaneous B&I Application No. 666612022
Anil Son of Shri Birdhichand, Resident Of Yaghya Shala Ki Wadi, Dhoofkot, Harijan Basti, . Nahargarh Road, Police Station Nahargarh, Jaipur (Raja) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through, P.p. A . ' '. . - 7 :I
Connected With
S-B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 990612~22 Kanaram S/o Raju Prabhati, Residence Of Teela t umber 3 Jawahar Nagar Kachibasti, Ps--3awahar . ,- - +. " Nagar, Jaipur At Present Tenent C/o Shankar Harijan . ~hahd'mari . !, -' . ;Batt, . Shastri Nagar, Ps Bhatta Basti, Jaipur ( At ~reseiit ~6tid6n'&-,1s . ... Confined In Central -/;:. :-v -. ,. Jail Jaipur) + + ,.
, ----Petitioner . . . ,
Versus. - . ' . . --
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
I, . ' , ;'
5. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail ~pplication No. 14687/2022 -. -, , . + Raj @ Golu Son Of ~abulai, Aged ~bout19 ; IS Years, Resident Of yagyashala Ki Bawdi, Dhul.kot Ha~~$~asti, . a- j Nahargarh Jaipur (~ajasthan) ( petitioner Is ~~sen&~onfined - In Judicial Custody -, ~n Central Jail Jaipur) - I# . .-,. L ----Petitioner
Versus
Order
01/12/2022
- Counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners-Anil and Kanaram have not been named in the FIR. Counsel for the petitionerKanaram submits that there is no recovery at the instance of the petitioner-Kanaram, Subsequently, the informant has improved his version when his statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr. P.C. counsel. for the petitioner-Kanaram submits that subsequently, other witnesses Ravi and duddi . .r.. .. . . have falsely implicated the petitioner-Kanaram and no specific ,dvert act has .-- ' >, been assigned to him. Counsel for the petitioners-Anil and' Raju @ Golu submits that though- the recovery of 'Nada' and 'Danda' have been shown their instance -but. . when. . the constable was examined before the Court, he has submitted that these articles I were not bearing any blood. Counsels :further submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case and they are in judicial custody from the date of their arrest, so indulgence of I. bail may be granted to them.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the i' averments made in the bail applicdtions and submitted that on the fateful day, these petitioners along-with other co-accused persons Reshma and Deepak took the deceased in Scorpio RJ-14-UF-9017 and thereafter, the deceased was not seen alive, Learned Public Prosecutor submits that when the petitioners Raju @ 01 and Anil were arrested, blood stained 'Nada' and 'Danda'were recovered at their instance and when these articles were sent to Forensic Science Laborator/ for analysis, human blood was found. Counsel
that instant case is based on circumstantial evidence and farethewitnesses oflastseen, whosaw Gopal, Ravi and Guddi
the deceased with the acompany of these persons. Counsels further submit that looking to the gravity of the matter, petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of bail.
Heard and considered the rival submission made at the Bar. This fact is not in dispute that the prosecution witnesses namely- Gopal, Ravi and Guddi have categorically stated in their statements that the deceased was taken by these accused Persons along with co-accused persons. and thereafter, the deceased was not seen last. Recovery .of blood stained '~ada' and 'Danda' are -. there but without making any comments on the merits and \ demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to grant indulgence - A of bail to these accused persons.
Before parting with the order, I would like to place on record by abundant caution that whatever has been observed here-inabove has been said only for the purpose of disposing of the ,, prayer of bail made by the petitioners. Nothing contained in this order shall be construed as expression of a final opinion on any of -A the issues of the fact or law arising for decision in the case, which shall naturally have to be done by the .,I ,L. ,I trial court at the appropriate stage of the trial. - ~ccordingly, these three bail applications stand dismissed, Registry is directed. to place a copy of this order in the connected files.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND)?~
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners Anil, Kanaram, and Raj @ Golu in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence and recovered blood-stained articles.
Whether the lack of specific recovery for individual petitioners warrants indulgence of bail despite forensic findings in their case.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil
Kanaram
Raj @ Golu
State Of Rajasthan
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
