Allowed

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2023CRLMB/10864/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a second bail application. The court found merit in the argument that it is improbable for the petitioner to be present at the scene without being named by the victim or witnesses initially. Citing mobile location evidence placing the petitioner at his village, the court granted bail subject to a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10864/2023

¶4

Jagdish S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Indras, Police Station Sadar, Nagaur, District Nagaur. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Nagaur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Sunil Vishnoi.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mukhtiyar Khan,P.P.
For Complainant	: Mr.Mangi Lal Bishnoi.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶10

ORDER

¶11

03/11/2023

¶12

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.154/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar Nagaur, District Nagaur, for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 365, 307, 120-B IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel urged that a written report was submitted by the complainant- Shrawan Ram stating inter alia that on 18.08.2022, at around 6 pm, his nephew Jagdish son of Mohan Ram Jat was standing near Shaheed Hemant Godara Statue in the village, when suddenly, co-accused persons namely Khuma Ram, Sohan Ram, Munna Ram and two-three other persons came in a Bolero vehicle and with an intention to kill him, brutally assaulted the victim-

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

[CRLMB-10864/2023]

(2 of 6)

Jagdish son of Mohan Ram Jat. Learned counsel submitted that in the FIR, it is stated that co-accused Sohan Ram and one other coaccused caught hold of victim- Jagdish, whereupon, co-accused Khuma Ram poured petrol upon the victim- Jagdish son of Mohan Ram Jat and then co-accused Munna Ram set the victim on fire.

¶18

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, even his presence has not been shown at the place of incident by the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that specific allegation of assaulting and setting the victim on fire has been levelled against co-accused persons namely Khuma Ram, Sohan Ram and Munna Ram.

¶19

Further attention of the Court was drawn towards the statements of eye witnesses namely, Aidana Ram, Narsi Ram, Munna Ram and Shankar Lal recorded under Section 161 CrPC to contend that eye-witnesses have neither assigned any role to the petitioner in the commission of alleged offence nor his presence has been shown by them at the place of occurrence.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that in the statements of victimJagdish son of Mohan Ram Jat recorded on 19.08.2022, while he was undergoing treatment at hospital, he has neither named the petitioner nor assigned any role to him in the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel urged that statements of victimJagdish were again recorded on 29.08.2022, wherein for the first time, name of the petitioner surfaced and it was alleged that on the previous night of the incident, the present petitioner had called victim to his residence, where the petitioner was sitting with

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

[CRLMB-10864/2023]

(3 of 6)

co-accused persons and as the victim reached the house of the petitioner, he was brutally assaulted by them. The specific allegation against the present petitioner is that he asked coaccused persons to undress the victim and after the same was done, he recorded a video of the victim. As per the victim, on the next day, the present petitioner told co-accused person Khuma Ram to take the victim near the shop of one Shankar son of Dungar Ram situated in the village, where he was set on fire by the co-accused persons. The victim in his statements has further stated that after setting him on fire, co-accused Khuma Ram told the petitioner that even after setting the victim on fire, he is still alive on which, the present petitioner told them to throw the victim in a nearby canal.

¶25

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the victim has narrated a false and exaggerated version of the incident only with a view to falsely rope the petitioner in a criminal case. Learned counsel submitted that it is highly improbable that the presence of the petitioner would not be shown by the complainant in the FIR or by the independent eye witnesses of the incident in their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC. Learned counsel argued that even the victim himself in his initial statements recorded on 19.08.2022, though had narrated the sequence of events in great detail but had not named the present petitioner as an accused. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the victim recorded on 29.08.2022 has been given in a well thought manner, to somehow implicate the petitioner in the commission of alleged crime.

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

[CRLMB-10864/2023]

(4 of 6)

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on last ten occasions, the prosecution witnesses have not turned up before competent criminal court for recording of their statements despite repeated summons/warrants issued by the competent criminal court which is indicative of the fact that the prosecution intentionally wants to delay the trial so that the petitioner remains behind the bars. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶30

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of accusations against the petitioner and specific role assigned to him by the victim in the commission of alleged crime, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the complainant though was not in position to refute the fact that prosecution witnesses have not turned up before competent criminal court for recording of their statements on last ten occasions, but submitted that the victim is undergoing treatment at various Medical Institutes including AIIMS, Jodhpur and owing to his poor health, he could not appear before the competent criminal court for recording of his testimony.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, challan

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

[CRLMB-10864/2023]

(5 of 6)

papers and statements of various independent eye-witnesses and statements of the victim recorded on 19.8.2022 and 29.8.2022 respectively, this Court prima facie finds merit in the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is highly improbable that if the petitioner was present at the place of incident, then why the complainant in the FIR lodged by him and the independent eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. would not name the petitioner as an accused or state his presence at the place of occurrence.

¶37

This Court also prima facie finds sufficient force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the victim in his statement recorded on the very next date of the alleged incident, did not name the petitioner while surprisingly almost after ten days from the date of alleged incident, the victim in his subsequent statements took name of the petitioner alongwith vivid details and sheer improvements, only to exaggerate the incident and with the intention of fastening the guilt on the petitioner.

¶38

This Court after carefully scrutinising the charge-sheet, also prima facie finds that the mobile tower location of mobile No.9982210239, belonging to the petitioner on the date of alleged incident, has been found to be near his dhani situated in village Indas and even at the time of alleged incident, the location of the petitioner’s above-mentioned mobile number was at his dhani and not at the place of occurrence.

¶39

This Court also prima facie finds that no document has been placed on record by learned counsel for the complainant to

[2023:RJ-JD:37777]

[CRLMB-10864/2023]

(6 of 6)

substantiate the argument that the victim was not in a position to appear before the competent criminal court for recording of his statements on almost ten court dates, for the reason that he was admitted in hospital. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶44

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Jagdish S/o Prabhu Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.154/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar Nagaur, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶45

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶46

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶47

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.7

Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish 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

Ganga Singh Vs State of Rajastan

Tola Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Udailal Vs State of Rajasthan

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhagal Singh @ Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amarpreet @ Amarjeet @ Happy Vs State of Rajathan