Dismissed

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 Apr 2023CRLMB/251/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the petitioner's second bail application in a case involving offences under IPC Sections 353, 333, 307/34 and the Arms Act, citing the recovery of the crime vehicle from him and his identification by the injured.

What did the court decide?

Bail application rejected; liberty to file fresh application after recording the statement of the injured.

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/012265]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 251/2023

¶4

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram S/o Kasnaram, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sawlata, Police Station Rani, District Pali, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Pali)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shaitan Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anees Bhurat,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

26/04/2023

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.146/2020 of Police Station Desuri, District Pali for the offence punishable under Sections 353, 333 & 307/34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is also submitted that there was no recovery from the petitioner and the recovery was made from the co-accused Prem Prakash. The petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2021 and the trial of the case will take time. Therefore, it is prayed that the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶15

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that in the identification parade, the injured identified the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the

[2023/RJJD/012265]

[CRLMB-251/2023]

(2 of 2)

vehicle which was involved in the commission of crime was recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that first bail application was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh after the statement of injured-Ranvir Singh and till now his statements have not been recorded therefore, the present bail application may be rejected.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that as per prosecution story, the vehicle used for the commission of crime has been recovered from the petitioner and in the identification parade, the petitioner was identified by the injured, without commenting on merits and demerits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Consequently the present bail application is rejected.

¶23

However, petitoner is at liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the statement of injured-Ranvir Singh.

¶24

Learned trial court is directed to record the statement of injured on priority basis.

¶25

Copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court through E-mail or Fax.

¶26

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶27

1-nidhi/-

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish @ Jamaram @ Jambaram 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

Bhom Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustafa Yunus Kha @ Batla Shoib Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan @ Banna Vs State of Rajasthan

Balveer @ Radhey Vs State of Rajasthan