Allowed

Vikram Deora v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CRLMB/9386/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was allowed. The court found no justified implication against the petitioner as evidence was collected post-arrest and there were no eyewitnesses, deeming indefinite incarceration unjust.

What did the court decide?

Accused enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

Vikram Deora Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9386/2022 Vikram Deora S/o Amritlal, Age 20 Years, R/o Dantiwara Police Station Falna, Dist. Pali Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail Bali)

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶6

----Respondent

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiar Khan, PP Mr. Arjun Singh for complainant

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶9

18/08/2022

¶10

The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Vikram Deora S/o Amritlal, who is in custody in relation to F.I.R. No.195/2021, Police Station Falna, District Pali, for the offences under Sections 302 & 201 of the IPC since the first bail application came to be dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.05.2022 with liberty to renew the prayer after recording of the statements of prosecution witnesses Shakti Singh and Hansaram in the trial.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statements of the two eye witnesses Shakti Singh and Hansaram have been recorded in the trial, thus, the petitioner has moved this second bail application. Admittedly, there is no eye witness of the incident and the entire case of the prosecution is based upon circumstantial evidence. The circumstances put forth against the petitioner are neither definite in tendency nor conclusive in nature. Most of the evidence has been collected after arrest of the petitioner only with a view to show his nexus with the alleged crime and the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the

¶12

(2 of 2)

¶13

[CRLMB-9386/2022]

¶14

fact regarding the availability of evidence against him when the arrest was affected. Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of last seen would mean that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused. In juxtaposition in this matter, two eye witnesses projected by the prosecution have stated that they dropped the accused at a particular point of time at a particular place, however, the deceased was not present there. Thus, the evidence of the aforementioned two witnesses is not worthy of credence. The trial would likely take long time to culminate and indefinite incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any purpose.

¶15

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no justification on his arrest because all the evidence purportedly collected by the agency was made post arrest seems to be worth considering. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶17

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vikram Deora S/o Amritlal 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 as and when called upon to do so.

¶18

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶19

38-amit/-

Vikram Deora v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Deora 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

Daulat Devi Vs New India Ins. Co. Ltd.

Kamla Devi Vs Vijay Singh

Dharmichand Vs Praveen

Madan Lal Vs Sampat Raj

Raju @Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Gawra @Gorishankar Vs State of Rajasthan