Allowed

Smt. Gajaro v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2023CRLMB/9957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed bail applications filed under Section 439 CrPC by three accused petitioners in a murder case. The court considered the sudden nature of the incident, the presence of female accused warranting leniency under Section 437 CrPC, and doubts regarding pre-meditation.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:38569]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12856/2023

¶4

Jagram Ram S/o Dhima Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Vil. Aranya Ps Karda Dist. Jalore Lodged At Dist. Jail Jalore

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Bhajan Lal S/o Kishan Ram, R/o Siwada Tehsil Chitalwana Dist. Jalore

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9957/2023 Smt. Gajaro W/o Bhakharram, Aged About 55 Years, Vishnu Nagar, Bavarla, P.s. Sarwana, Dist. Jalore. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail, Jalore).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10312/2023 Kiran D/o Bhakharram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vishnu Nagar, Bavarla, Police Thana Sarwana, District Jalore (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Jalore)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted byMs. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary, P.P.
	Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi

(2 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:38569]

[CRLMB-12856/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶26

Order

¶27

07/11/2023

¶28

The complainant/victim party is being represented by Mr. Bhagirath Bishnoi.

¶29

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

¶30

No.	Particulars of the	Case
1.	FIR Number	63/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Sarvana
3.	District	Jalore
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	S. 302/34 & 120-B of IPC and S. 3/25 of Arms Act
5.	Offences added,if any	-
6.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B.CRLMB - 12856/2023)	04.10.2023
7.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B.CRLMB - 10312/2023)	05.08.2023
8.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B.CRLMB - 9957/2023)	03.08.2023

¶31

S.No.

¶32

The concise facts of the case as alleged in the FIR lodged by the complainant are that when he was attending some rituals after the death of one of his relatives along iwth the deceased and other family members, accused Bakharram, Gajaro, Kiran and Praveen arrived there and threatened to kill them including the deceased Bhikaram. Thereafter, they left, went home and made a plan on how to kill the deceased after which accused Bakharram, Praveen and Kiran came back at the place of incident and accused

[2023:RJ-JD:38569]

[CRLMB-12856/2023]

(3 of 5)

Praveen shot the deceased down. Hence, the present FIR came to be registered.

¶37

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. The petitioners were family members of the deceased and there was no planning or intent to kill the victim. The incident took place suddenly. The petitioner Jagram is not even named in the FIR and has been made an accused only because he is a relative of the parties. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶38

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 6. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is revealing from the FIR that the family members were engaged in a hot altercation during which things escalated and the principal accused Praveen took out his revolver and shot the deceased. Two of the three petitioners before this Court are women and there is a special provision under Section 437 of CrPC that stipulates that a lenient view is to be taken in cases concerning women, sick or infirm and a person below 16 years of age. It is mentioned in the FIR that the petitioner Gajaro did not come back with the other accused persons as alleged to shoot the deceased and thus, the

[2023:RJ-JD:38569]

[CRLMB-12856/2023]

(4 of 5)

allegation that the petitioners pre-planned the murder of the deceased cannot be proved against her at this stage. The submission of counsel for the petitioner Jagram Ram that he was not named in the FIR and has been roped in only by virtue of being a relative seems to be worth considering at this stage. Though it is mentioned that petitioner Kiran exhorted and incited the principal accused Praveen to shoot the victim but at this stage, the submission cannot be ignored that the incident happened in spur of the moment and if the submissions are weighed against the allegation made, the story narrated by the petitioner seems to be more probable than what has been alleged in the FIR.

¶43

In view of the above, it is deemed appropriate to grant the benefit of bail to the accused persons though the genuineness of the allegations shall be adjudged after appreciation of evidence during trial. 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 enlarge the petitioners on bail 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 shall not influence the trial judge in any manner whatsoever while presiding over this matter.

¶44

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners as named in the cause title 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

¶45

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-12856/2023]

¶46

[2023:RJ-JD:38569]

¶47

trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all

¶48

the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶49

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶50

125-127/-

Smt. Gajaro v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gajaro 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

Bhanwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohanlal Vs State

Rameshwar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Priyanka Sagar Agrawal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Narang Vs State of Rajasthan