Allowed

Vikram @ Vicky v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2023CRLMB/9519/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan allowed the petitioner to be released on bond, noting defects in prosecution evidence including missing CCTV footage and lack of ballistics matching, observing that continued detention served no useful purpose.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Vikram @ Vicky Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9519/2023

¶3

Vikram @ Vicky S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 186 Gandhi Basti Mahilapark, Purani Aabadi, Presently Gali No. 3 Tegbahadur Colony Chack-7-Z P.s. Sadar Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged At Dist. Jail, Sriganganagar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K. Bhati, P.P.

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶10

Order

¶11

11/08/2023

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Vikram @ Vicky S/o Gopal Singh under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR No.143/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sriganganagar for the offence(s) under Sections 307, 326, 323, 341, 34 IPC & 27 of the Arms Act Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence yet he has been implicated in this matter grudgefully with an ulterior object. Initially when the FIR got lodged, name of the assailants were not mentioned therein, however, on the next day, the victim stated to the police that the persons who made assault on him were Rajat Dua, Mohit Seni and the present applicant. The said accused Rajat Dua and one Asif has already been released on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this

¶13

[CRLMB-9519/2023]

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

Court. It is stated that the recovery of country made pistol from the petitioner is nothing but farce yet the same cannot be taken as a piece of evidence because the bullet which was taken on out from the body of the victim was not sent for matching with the gun allegedly recovered from the petitioner. There is no report of Ballistic expert or FSL report in this regard. The petitioner is behind the bars since 22.05.2022 and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars.

¶16

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and he agrees that that co-accused Rajat Dua has already been enlarged on bail. He admits that the name of the petitioner was not shown in the FIR and on the next day, when names were given by victim, the name of the petitioner was included with Rajat Dua.

¶17

Heard. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and more particularly looking to the fact that the knowledge of the victim with regard to presence of the accused is said to get from CCTV camera but no such footage of the camera was taken on record and the requisite certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act was also not obtained. At the stage of entertaining the bail application, this Court is not supposed to pass observation or comment on the defects or dents on the prosecution evidence, yet considering the object of bail and right to parity and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time to conclude as well as considering that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars, it appears that a case for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out,

¶18

[CRLMB-9519/2023]

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

thus, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vikram @ Vicky S/o Gopal Singh in connection with FIR No.143/2022 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Sriganganagar shall be enlarged on bail provided he 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶23

48-Taruna/-

Vikram @ Vicky v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram @ Vicky 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

Amit Sharma Vs Rajkumar

Kiran Kumar Gharu Vs Smt. Anita

Dharampal Singhal Vs Babulal Gaykavad

Sagar Mal Vs State

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bikar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan