The High Court rejected the petitioner's bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It held that the petitioner has an active and specific role in causing injuries to the deceased, distinguishing his case from co-accused granted bail. Thus, bail was not inclined to be granted.
Bail application rejected.
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 RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9051/2022
Prahalad Ram S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Parva, Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner. (In Judicial Custody At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
| ----Respondent | ||
|---|---|---|
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv assisted byMr. PradeepChoudhary |
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP Mr. Manish Dadhich |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/11/2022
The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with C.R. Case No.254/2020 of Police Station Nokha, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 325, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused Jagdish, Rakesh, Ranjeet and Mularam have been granted bail by this Court and another co-accused Hari Ram has been enlarged on bail by trial Court. Counsel further submits that there is no enmity between the petitioner and family members of the deceased. Furthermore, injured complainant Rajendra Singh has been examined before the Court as PW-1, only omnibus allegation has been levelled against the present
(2 of 2)
[CRLMB-9051/2022]
petitioner. The petitioner is in the judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer for bail. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned public prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
A specific allegation has been made in the FIR as well as in the statement of injured-complainant, Rajendra Singh that Kundan, Prahlad, Rameshwar and Bajrang all these accused persons caused injuries to the injured and deceased. According to the Postmortem Report, fifteen injuries were caused to the deceased, some of which have been found to be grievous in nature. The active and specific role has been assigned to the present petitioner and case of present petitioner is altogether different from the co-accused persons who have already been enlarged on bail. In these circumstances without expressing any opinion on merit and demerit of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.
Hence, the bail application filed by the petitioner is hereby rejected.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
49-raksha/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. given the specific charges incriminating him in a violent offense involving death and grievous injuries.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Prahalad Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
