Dismissed

Smt. Dhaku v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jun 2023CRLMB/3677/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the third criminal bail application. The court held that the petitioner was fully involved in the heinous crime and there was no substantial change in circumstances to warrant bail despite prosecution witness statements.

What did the court decide?

The third criminal miscellaneous bail application is dismissed.

Smt. Dhaku Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/018427]

[CRLMB-3677/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3677/2023

¶6

Smt. Dhaku W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, B/c Sirvi, R/o Pawa, Police Station Takhatgarh, Tehsil Sumerpur, Dist. Pali. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Govt. Advocate, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh, P.P

¶12

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶13

Judgment

¶14

Reserved on 30/05/2023 Pronounced on 02/06/2023

¶15

This criminal misc. third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been preferred seeking grant of bail to the accusedpetitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.227/2019 registered at Police Station Takhatgarh, District Pali for the offences under Sections 302, 394, 201 and 34 IPC.

¶16

The first bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9006/2020, was dismissed, as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2020.

¶17

2.1. The second bail application preferred on behalf of the present petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No.16789/2021 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021.

[2023/RJJD/018427]

[CRLMB-3677/2023]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of P.W.-1 to P.W-9 clearly reveal that they did not support the case of the prosecution, as thereby, the petitioner has not been attributed any direct role in commission of the crime in question. Therefore, as per learned counsel, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the allegations against the petitioner in this case.

¶22

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in this case, only piece of rope was recovered, which also did not match with the rope found on the body of the deceased. Therefore, the alleged offences are not proved against the present petitioner at this stage, which entitles him for grant of bail.

¶23

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner is fully involved in the crime in question, and that, the offences alleged against the petitioner are heinous in nature; thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, looking into the gravity of the alleged offences, the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. It was further submitted that the learned Court below had passed a well reasoned speaking order, which is justified in law.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

¶25

This Court finds that the petitioner is fully involved in the alleged offence in question and the role of the petitioner in such a heinous crime cannot be denied at this stage. This Court also finds that the statements of PW-1 to PW-8 have been recorded, which do not support the case of the present petitioner, at this stage.

¶26

[2023/RJJD/018427]

¶27

[CRLMB-3677/2023]

¶28

The learned Court below vide the impugned order has duly taken into consideration the factual matrix of the case at hand as well as the statement of the P.W. 1 to 8, and that, after dismissal of the earlier bail applications of the petitioner by this Court, there is no substantial change in the circumstances of the case, so as to entitle the petitioner for grant of bail.

¶29

Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also looking into the gravity of the offences in question alleged against the petitioner, but without making any comments on the merits of the case at this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner, at this stage.

¶30

Consequently, the present third bail application is dismissed.

¶31

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶32

SKant/-

Smt. Dhaku v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Dhaku 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

Kishan Lal Mewara Vs State of Rajasthan

Assistant Commissioner Bikaner Vs M/S Vishwa Jyoti Theatdres Bikaner

Shri Balaji Securities Service Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayanti Lal Vs the Commissioner, Devsthan Vibhag

Mohan Das Vs Legal Representative of Late Kewal Chand

Municipal Council Hanumangarh Vs Rajkumar Hisariya