Allowed

Akram S/O Alisher v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2024CRLMB/10385/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought bail in a murder case after his first application was rejected. The court noted that material witnesses had been declared hostile and the PAN drive containing voice recordings was not submitted by the police. Granting bail on changed circumstances without prejudice to merits.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted with a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Akram S/O Alisher Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:35823]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10385/2024

¶4

Akram S/o Alisher, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dabri Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain Mr. Liyakat Ali Mr. Syed Nooruzzama Mr. Mahendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

27/08/2024

¶13

This 2^nd bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No.242/2022, registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 120-B, 201, 368, 447 & 34 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.04.2024 granting liberty to him to renew his prayer for bail after recording the statements of the material witnesses namely Mubin, Aarif, Jatuni, Mukesh and Gurmeet Singh. Counsel submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, now the statements of these material witnesses PW-3 Aarif Khan, PW-4 Mukesh, PW-5 Gurumeet Singh, PW-6 Bharat Singh, PW-7 Jatuni have been recorded and

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:35823]

[CRLMB-10385/2024]

they have not supported the version of prosecution, hence, they have declared hostile. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude and under the changed circumstances indulgence be granted to the petitioner.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that axe, sim card and the mobile have been recorded at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that there was a motive of the petitioner to commit the murder of the deceased as there was a demand of ransom. Counsel submits that even the place of occurrence has also been identified at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that even the voice of the petitioner was recorded in a mobile which was taken in a PAN drive along with transcription wherein involvement of the petitioner is found to be established. Counsel submits that even the dead body of the deceased has also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the defective investigation has been done by the police/Investigating Agency and the petitioner cannot take the benefit of the defective investigation made by the Police. Hence, under these circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to get indulgence of bail.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record.

¶21

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that after

[CRLMB-10385/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:35823]

(3 of 3)

rejection of the first bail application statements of the material witnesses PW3-Aarif have been recorded and they have not supported the version of the petitioner and they have been declared as hostile and looking to the fact that PAN drive has not been submitted with the charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency before the Trial Court and looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S.

¶26

Accordingly, this 2^nd bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Akram S/o Alisher arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

GARIMA /1

Akram S/O Alisher v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akram S/O Alisher 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

Mana Ram S/O Shri Bhoma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohan Lal S/O Shri Puran Mal Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Murti Daughter of Late Shri Badliya Gurjar, Wife of Shri Phoolchand Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Malkhan Singh Vs R S R T C and Ors.

Smt. Nilam Kumari W/O Late Shri Jagat Singh D/O Shri Billu Ram Vs Union of India

Krishan Kumar Deshwal Vs U O I Staff Selection Commi Ors.