Allowed

Rameshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2023CRLMB/11033/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge order allows the second bail application filed by three petitioners accused of offences under various IPC sections. The court noted cross FIRs, non-dangerous injuries, and likely delay in trial as grounds to grant bail with personal bond and sureties, while expressing no opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Rameshwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:37814]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 11033/2023

¶4

Rameshwar Lal S/o Gopi Teli, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Station Khera, Rayla Ps, Rayla, Dist, Bhilwata. (At Present In Judicial Custody At Sub Jail, Gulabpura)

¶5

Sanwarmal S/o Rameshwar Lal Teli, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Station Khera, Rayla Ps, Rayla, Dist, Bhilwata. (At Present In Judicial Custody At Sub Jail, Gulabpura)

¶6

Ghanshyam S/o Rameshwar Lal Tali, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Station Khera, Rayla Ps, Rayla, Dist, Bhilwata. (At Present In Judicial Custody At Sub Jail, Gulabpura)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Sameer Khan.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Arun Kumar,P.P.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶13

04/11/2023

¶14

The matter has come upon an application filed by the petitioners.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to some typographical error, in the cause title of the bail application, it has been mentioned that the petitioners are presently lodged at Sub Jail, Gulabpura but as a matter of fact, the petitioners have been shifted to Central Jail, Ajmer. It was submitted that an amended cause title has been filed by the petitioners which may be taken on record.

¶16

For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed. The Registry is directed to take amended cause title on record.

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

(2 of 3)

[2023:RJ-JD:37814]

[CRLMB-11033/2023]

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.116/2023 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 341, 307 IPC.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that due to sudden provocation, fight ensued between the petitioners and the complainant party. The petitioners have also filed an FIR against the complainant party under various Sections of IPC. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no intention to commit the alleged crime and in the sudden fight which occurred between the parties, certain injuries were inflicted upon injured Azad Devi, which are though grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. It was further submitted that the other injuries inflicted upon other injured persons are simple in nature. Learned counsel submitted that the investigation against the petitioners has already been completed and therefore, no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners behind an indefinite period.

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶25

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that cross FIRs have been lodged by the parties and therefore, it is difficult

[2023:RJ-JD:37814]

[CRLMB-11033/2023]

(3 of 3)

to determine whether the petitioners were aggressors in the incident or not. Even otherwise, injuries have been sustained by both the parties. This Court also prima facie finds that the injuries alleged to have been inflicted by the petitioners upon the injured Azad Devi are not dangerous to life though grievous in nature; all other injuries inflicted upon other injured persons are simple in nature. This Court also finds that the trial against the petitioners is likely to take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Rameshwar Lal S/o Gopi Teli, (ii) Sanwarmal S/o Rameshwar Lal Teli and (iii) Ghanshyam S/o Rameshwar Lal Tali shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.116/2023 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara, provided each of them 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

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.

¶32

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶33

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.27

Rameshwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar Lal 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

Heera Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhagal Singh @ Arjun Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Thathera Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan