Partly allowed

Balmukand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2023CRLMB/2751/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered bail applications for four accused persons in a murder and rioting case. While CCTV footage established the presence of petitioner Balmukand, the presence of others was not conclusively established. The Court granted bail to three petitioners (Parasram, Gopal Singh, Shanti Lal) on bonds but rejected the application of the fourth petitioner (Balmukand).

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Parasram Mawta, Gopal Singh, and Shanti Lal on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each; Bail rejected for Balmukand.

Balmukand Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017820]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2751/2023

¶4

Balmukand S/o Kalu Lal Ji Dhobi, Aged About 27 Years, Khedaruda, P.s. Chechat, Kota Gramin, Dist Kota (Raj.). (In Judicial Custody At Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14601/2022 Parasram Mawta @ Parsa S/o Shriram, Aged About 38 Years, B/c Gurjar, R/o Opp. Water Box, Borawas Thana R. K. Puram Koa Dist. Kota. (Presently Lodged Sub Jail, Bengu)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 600/2023 Gopal Singh S/o Chhota Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Rajput R/o Rampuriya Ps Chechat Kota Gramin Dist. Kota Raj. (In J.c. At Dist. Jail Chittorgarh)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2752/2023 Shanti Lal S/o Dalli Chand Ji, Aged About 40 Years, Mohanpura, P.s. Rawatbhata, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.). (In Judicial Custody At Dist. Jail, Chittorgarh).

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

(2 of 8) [CRLMB-2751/2023]

¶26

[2023/RJJD/017820]

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. J.S. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Pradeep Choudhary Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Bhanwar Ram Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P. Ms. Kamla Goswami,Asst. P.P.
For complainant	: Mr. Zafar Khan

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶29

Order

¶30

29/05/2023

¶31

These four applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.90/2022 registered at Police Station Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 384, 452, 302, 307 and 120-B IPC.

¶32

The case of the prosecution in brief, as per the first information report and other material, is that on 04.04.2022, the complainant along with Deva Gurjar (deceased), Laxman Gurjar went in his Scorpio, which overheated, whereupon, they took it to a mechanic shop where car of Deva Gurjar had already been given for service repairs. The complainant and Laxman were showing the car issues to the mechanic, meanwhile Deva Gurjar went to barber’s shop for getting his beard trimmed.

¶33

Three cars stopped outside the barber’s shop/salon from which 20 people armed with pistols, dhariya , lathis , iron rods ( sariyas ), swords came out and brutally attacked Deva Gurjar upon whom rounds were fired, injuries were inflicted with ganda, resulting in cut in his neck pursuant to which, he fell on the

[2023/RJJD/017820]

[CRLMB-2751/2023]

(3 of 8)

ground. The accused persons also inflicted injuries upon the deceased’s head, arms and legs with lathis and iron rods ( sariyas ). After this, the accused persons fled from the place of occurrence. The deceased was taken Hospital Rawatbhata, from where he was referred to Kota, where he succumbed to the aforesaid injuries.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner- Balmukand, Gopal Singh and Shanti Lal submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there are stark contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses, casting doubts on prosecution story and also on the presence of the present petitioners at the place of incident.

¶39

Learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards the FIR and statements of Nand Lal (complainant), under Sections 161 Cr.P.C, titamba byaan (supplementary statements) and Section 164 Cr.P.C dated 05.04.2022, 07.04.2022 and 13.06.2022 respectively, to submit that the petitioners have not been named by the complainant in the FIR and so also in his statements under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have only been named by the complainant in the titamba byaan (supplementary statements) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 07.04.2022.

¶40

Further, learned counsel submitted that Laxmi Narayan @ Laxman, another eye-witness, in his statement dated 07.04.2022 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., names the petitioner but omits to do so in statements recorded on 13.06.2022 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It was vehemently submitted that another eye witness namely Surendra Gurjar has named/shown presence of the petitioners in

[2023/RJJD/017820]

[CRLMB-2751/2023]

(4 of 8)

the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.04.2022 but has not shown the presence or named them in Section 164 statements dated 13.06.2022.

¶45

The Court’s attention was invited towards statement of Kali Bai (sister of deceased Deva and also eye-witness of the incident) recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 10.04.2022 and submitted that in her statement, she has named co-accused Babulal Gurjar, Kalulal Gurjar, Bherulal Gurjar, Sanwara Gurjar and Balram Jaat. Also, Kali Bai (sister) in her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 13.06.2022, has reiterated the above names. It was thus, submitted that even the sister of the deceased and also eye-witness of the incident, Kali Bai has not named/shown the presence of the present petitioners.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner- Parasram Mawta while adopting all the arguments made by the counsel for other petitioners additionally submitted that though petitioner- Parasram Mawta has been named by the complainant in the FIR and his statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., but aforesaid witness in his titamba byaan (supplementary statements) and statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not named the present petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that other eye witnesses namely, Laxminarayan @ Laxman, Surendra Gurjar, Kali Bai (sister) have also not shown presence of the petitioner at the place of incident.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that complainant and witnesses have given an exaggerated version of the FIR and through their statements have tried to

[2023/RJJD/017820]

[CRLMB-2751/2023]

(5 of 8)

connect all those who were present at the place of incident, though they had nothing to do with the alleged crime. Learned counsel jointly submitted that the presence of accused persons at the place of incident has not been established. According to learned counsel, contradictions in the statements of eye-witnesses creates shadow of doubt on their truthfulness and thus, the petitioners cannot be connected with the commission of alleged crime.

¶52

Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners had no motive to murder the deceased- Deva Gurjar. To substantiate this contention, attention was drawn towards statement of wife of the deceased, Kali Bai (not an eye witness of the incident) under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and Section 164 Cr.P.C. dated 19.06.2022 and 13.06.2022 respectively and submitted that no prior enmity between present petitioners and deceased has been mentioned whereas she has stated enmity with other accused persons.

¶53

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that I.O. did not get the identification proceedings conducted in the present case at the hands of the complainant or other eye witnesses, thereby casting doubts on the prosecution story.

¶54

It was further submitted that recovery of lathis at the instance of petitioners- Balmukand and Gopal under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act are inconsequential, for the reasons that same were admittedly without blood stains and were not sent for FSL examination. Thus, the same in itself are not sufficient corroboratory evidence to link the petitioners with the alleged crime.

[2023/RJJD/017820]

[CRLMB-2751/2023]

(6 of 8)

Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of aforesaid, submitted that the present case is simply overimplication and exaggeration of the alleged incident, roping the petitioners in a false case. Learned counsel submitted that challan has already been filed in the case and trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude.

¶59

On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners.

¶60

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that CCTV footage of the alleged incident and examination of the same thereof, clearly establishes the presence of petitioners at the place of the incident. They jointly submitted that in the present case, the accused petitioners brutally inflicted multiple injuries upon deceased- Deva Lal, as a result whereof, he died. They thus, prayed that the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail in the present case.

¶61

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

¶62

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, any observation made by this Court on the veracity of the statements of complainant and other eye-witnesses at this stage may prejudice the prosecution’s case at the trial.

¶63

However, in order to appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court carefully perused the charge sheet and analysis of CCTV footage made by the investigating

[2023/RJJD/017820]

[CRLMB-2751/2023]

(7 of 8)

agency. This Court prima facie finds that the CCTV footage do no establish the presence of accused persons except petitionerBalmukand s/o Shri Kalu Lal, at the place of occurrence. This Court prima facie also finds that lathis allegedly used for commission of offence has been recovered on the basis of information provided by petitioner- Balmukand and Gopal under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. However, as noticed above, the presence of petitioner- Balmukand has been prima facie established through the CCTV footage.

¶68

Having considered rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners- Parasram Mawta @ Parsa S/o Shriram, Gopal Singh S/ o Chhota Singh and Shanti Lal S/o Dalli Chand Ji on bail.

¶69

Accordingly, the bail applications (CRLMB 14601/2022, 600/2023 AND 2752/2023) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- (i) Parasram Mawta @ Parsa S/o Shriram, (ii) Gopal Singh S/o Chhota Singh and (iii) Shanti Lal S/o Dalli Chand Ji respectively shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.90/2022 registered at Police Station Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, 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.

¶70

The bail application (CRLMB 2751/2023), preferred on behalf of Balmukand S/o Kalu Lal is hereby rejected.

¶71

(8 of 8) [CRLMB-2751/2023]

¶72

[2023/RJJD/017820]

¶73

It is made clear that the Court has not entered into the merits of the case and none of the observations made herein, by itself, would operate prejudicial to the interest of the parties nor shall have any bearing on the final verdict by the trial court.

¶74

A copy of this order be placed in each file.

¶75

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶76

/tarun goyal/

Balmukand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balmukand 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

Kana @ Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sant Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan