Allowed

Sahabhram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Oct 2023CRLMB/770/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed by four accused-petitioners in a murder and grievous injury case. The court noted the dispute stemmed from a trivial issue over agricultural land ownership. Finding the prosecution case belied to a large extent due to the exoneration of eight other accused and the omnibus nature of allegations, the court deemed their incarcerat

What did the court decide?

Allowed bail applications and ordered accused-petitioners to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties for appearance.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:32615]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1928/2023

¶4

Chandrabhan S/o Sh. Banwari Lal, Aged About 32 Years, W. No. 01, Chak 21 Ksp, Arainanwali, P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.). (Lodged At Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 770/2023 Sahabhram S/o Gangaram @ Jogiram, Aged About 77 Years, R/o 05-A Wsm Ps Hanumangarh Town Tehsil And Dist. Hanumangarh (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Hanumangarh)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2979/2023 Sandeep S/o Sh. Bheem Sain, Aged About 26 Years, Chak-22, Ndr, P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Teh. And Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2981/2023 Devendra S/o Lt. Sh. Harish Chandra, Aged About 55 Years, B/c Jat, R/o H.no. 6-C, 132, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikner (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶21

----Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

[CRLMB-1928/2023]

¶26

[2023:RJ-JD:32615]		(2 of 5)
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	P. Kumar Shah Vineet Jain
	Mr.	Deepak Menaria
	Mr.	Umesh Kant
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	G. Singh, PP I. R. Choudhary

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶28

Order

¶29

03/10/2023

¶30

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶31

S.No.	Particulars	of the Case
1.	FIR Number	281/2020
2.	Concerned Police Station	Hanumangarh Town
3.	District	Hanumangarh
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 302, 307, 323, 427, 447, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act.
5.	Offences added,if any	---

¶32

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. It is submitted that it was a dispute between the siblings which erupted in spur of the moment upon a very trivial issue with respect to claiming of ownership of their agricultural field which can be elucidated from the contentions made in the FIR and the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

[2023:RJ-JD:32615]

[CRLMB-1928/2023]

(3 of 5)

No specific or overt act has been assigned to any of the petitioners, thus, there appears no reasonable ground so as to allow continuation of their further incarceration. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶37

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶38

Heard and perused the material available on record. The dispute arose regarding the ownership of a land which belongs to the late mother of the petitioners. After her death, the land got mutated in the name of her four daughters. One of the daughter who belongs to the complainant party of this case raised a claim of her absolute ownership of the land on the premise that the old lady had bequeathed the property in her name. Thus, on the ground that she had made a will in her favour, she made a challenge to the mutation entry by way of filing an appeal under Section 75 of Land Revenue Act before the Court of Sub-divisional Officer. The appeal was dismissed. Then, she moved a second appeal to the Divisional Commissioner which also got dismissed; thereafter, challenge was made before the revenue board wherein Revenue Board passed an interim order directing the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the land in question.

¶39

Prima facie it is reflecting that the physical possession of the

¶40

land in question belongs to the three other daughters of the old

[2023:RJ-JD:32615]

[CRLMB-1928/2023]

(4 of 5)

lady which can be inferred from the material collected so far. From the statement recorded during investigation, prima facie, it is revealing that the accused party were in the possession of the land in question which is further corroborated by the site memo prepared by the police prima facie it is also revealing that the complainant party were the aggressors who tried to get forceful possession from the accused party.

¶45

On the fateful day of incident, the complainant party went to the field, parked their car at some distance from the agricultural field and thereafter, it is alleged that they were brutally beaten by the accused-party. It is the claim of the accused party that they only protected their life and property since the law has provided a right to self defence of person and property in their favour. It is also their claim that the complainant party were the ones who initiated the aggression. Prima facie, the claim raised by the accused party seems to be luring and this court is of the opinion that the same can be considered for the purpose of granting bail to the accused-petitioners, since the final adjudication can be done only after a full fledged trial.

¶46

The FIR got lodged against 16 or more persons and only eight persons were charge sheeted and the rest had been left-out/ exonerated. Neither any protest petition was filed by the victim party at the stage of filing of charge sheet under Section 173 nor any application was filed under Sections 190, 193 or 319 of Cr.P.C., as the case maybe. The allegations of beating are omnibus in nature so it is not comprehensible as to whether the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioners were responsible for the death

[2023:RJ-JD:32615]

[CRLMB-1928/2023]

(5 of 5)

of the deceased or the injuries can be attributed to the persons who have been left-out in the charge-sheet. No specific role or overt act has been assigned to any person. At present, it can be assumed that the case of the prosecution has been belied to a large extent in view of the exoneration of eight accused persons. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter.

¶51

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners shall be enlarged on bail 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.

¶52

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶53

21-Pramod/-

Sahabhram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahabhram 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

Aditya Sharma Vs C.P. Gupta

Union of India Vs Jamdad Khan

Bhanwar Lal Vs State

Babu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Amraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Vs State of Rajasthan