Allowed

Radha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 May 2023CRLMB/614/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application was allowed. The High Court, noting lack of eyewitness, recovery, or transcript of call details, found that call details alone could not establish a live link between the petitioner and co-accused. Consequently, bail was granted on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.299/2022 by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Radha Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017147]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 614/2023

¶4

Radha D/o Sawarlal, Aged About 26 Years, Patel Nagar, P.s. Jnv, Dist. Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Hari Shanker Shrimali.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Shrawan Kumar,P.P.
For Complainant	: Mr.Gokulesh Bohra.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶11

24/05/2023

¶12

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.299/2022 registered at Police Station JNVC, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120B IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no witness available with the prosecution connecting him with the commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the case against the present petitioner hinges upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is, therefore, required to prima facie prove complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking the petitioner with the alleged crime.

[2023/RJJD/017147]

[CRLMB-614/2023]

(2 of 3)

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the present case solely on the basis of certain call details between her and co-accused person Manoj. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶19

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted that owing to disputes between present petitioner and her deceased husband, the petitioner conspired with co-accused persons for commission of alleged crime. To substantiate this contention, attention of the Court was drawn towards the statement of one Chandu Ram, Smt.Suman etc. recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

¶20

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

¶21

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there are call details sans the transcript, between the petitioner and coaccused Manoj. Apart from call details, there is neither any eyewitness nor any recovery effected at the instance of the petitioner.

¶22

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, in absence of recording of conversation exchanged between the accused persons, the call details cannot be treated as corroborative

[2023/RJJD/017147]

[CRLMB-614/2023]

(3 of 3)

material sufficient to establish a live link between the accused persons.

¶27

Further, the statements of Chandu Ram, Smt.Suman etc. recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. though indicate existence of dispute between the petitioner and deceased but that is not sufficient to establish that the prosecutrix conspired with coaccused persons for committing murder of her husband.

¶28

Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Radha D/o Sawarlal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.299/2022 registered at Police Station JNVC, District Bikaner, provided she 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 her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶30

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.

¶31

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶32

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.32

Radha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radha 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

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Meh Ram Mehra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayan @ Pappu Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohan Lal @ Munna Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilawar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Giri Vs State of Rajasthan