Allowed

Pankaj Kumar Son of Shri Harnath v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jun 2023CRLMB/4145/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to three accused persons charged with offences under various sections of the IPC. The court observed that key prosecution witnesses turned hostile and the complainant was not an eyewitness, leading to the conclusion that bail applications deserved acceptance.

What did the court decide?

Release of all three petitioners on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh and two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.

Pankaj Kumar Son of Shri Harnath Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

(1). S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶3

4145/2023

¶4

Pankaj Kumar Son Of Shri Harnath, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Parliya PS Sawar Ajmer District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Tonk).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

(2). S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4146/2023 Dilkhus @ Bhola S/o Ramesh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Gram Paraliya, Police Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Tonk).

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

(3). S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4329/2023 Ramraj S/o Randev, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Parliya, Police Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central, Tonk)

¶16

----Accused-Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anoop Pareek, Mr. Aman Ali and
	Mr. Shiv Shankar Choudhary with
	Mr. Shiv R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Mahala, PP

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[CRLMB-4145/2023]

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR (V. J.)

¶24

Order

¶25

08/06/2023

¶26

These applications for bail have been filed by the petitioners under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.67/2022, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 307, 365 & 34 IPC.

¶27

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

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this case FIR was lodged by one Amit Viswas to the effect that on 11.02.2022 he received an information on telephone that on his field which is situated at Devpura, where workers of the complainant were doing agricultural work, at that time accused Pankaj Meena, Bhola, Ramraj Meena, Surja Raigar along-with some other persons came and started beating with Anil, Veerbahadur, Musafir and Dhanai. In the incident Anil and Veerbahadur have died and Musafir sustained injuries. After investigation charge sheet against all the three petitioners was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 109, 382, 302, 364, 201, 120-B, 325 read with 34 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that the bail application of petitionerPankaj Kumar was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.06.2022 with liberty to file fresh application after change in any circumstances. Learned counsel further submitted that trial of the case has commenced and statements of as many as 10 witnesses including complainant and injured eye-witness-Musafir have been recorded.

¶29

[CRLMB-4145/2023]

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

Learned counsel further submitted that complainant-Amit Vishwas has been examined as PW-1 and deposed that he got information of the incident on telephone and he was not present on the spot of the crime. In his examination-in-chief he has deposed about prosecution story. He admits that whatever he has deposed during trial, was on the basis of information given by Musafir. Thus, PW-1 is not the eye witness of the case. Musafir, who is injured eyewitness, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution story. He has not said against the present accused. Other eyewitnesses Anandi Sahani-PW-3, Babulal-PW-4 and Munsi KumarPW-9 have also turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version. Therefore, on the basis of statement recorded during trial, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no cogent evidence available against the accusedpetitioners. The petitioners are behind the bars since long and conclusion of the trial will take long time and, therefore, petitioners be enlarged on bail.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed these bail applications.

¶33

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that complainant of the case is not the eye witness, he has lodged an FIR on the basis of information received by him from the statement given by Musafir, as well as the fact that Munsi and Musafir have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution version, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CRLMB-4145/2023]

¶36

opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶37

Consequently, the bail applications filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ar allowed. It is ordered that petitioners No.1-Pankaj Kumar Son Of Shri Harnath, No.2-Dilkhus @ Bhola S/o Ramesh and No.-3 Ramraj S/o Randev , arrested in FIR No.67/2022, Police Station Deoli, District Tonk shall be released on bail; provided they furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitioners shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶38

[ASHUTOSH KUMAR (V. J.)],J

¶39

MADAN/47-49

Pankaj Kumar Son of Shri Harnath v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Kumar Son of Shri Harnath 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

Dinesh Son of Shri Prahlad Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar S/O Shyopal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Krishna Kumari Jat D/O Shri Suglaram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Adil Son of Shri Akbar Vs State of Rajasthan

Nemichand S/O Late Shri Bagaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilkhus @ Bhola S/O Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan