Partly allowed

Hariram S/O Kalyansahay v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2024CRLMB/10649/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail applications for Yadram @ Ranga and Kamlesh @ K.k. charged with murder, citing lack of direct evidence and absent identification. Bail was dismissed for Hariram due to his specific inclusion as a culprit in witness statements.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Yadram @ Ranga and Kamlesh @ K.k. subject to bond; bail application of Hariram dismissed with liberty to file afresh.

Hariram S/O Kalyansahay Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶2

(1 of 6)

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10649/2024

¶5

Hariram S/o Kalyansahay, R/o Meena Simla, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶6

(At Present Petitioner Confined At District Jail Dausa).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10222/2024

¶13

Yadram @ Ranga S/o Shri Ramjilal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Trishul Karauli Tan Manauj, Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City (Raj.)

¶14

(The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail, Dausa).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶18

Kaluram S/o Shri Thandiram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Meena Seemla, Police Station Mendipur Balaji, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

Connected with

¶21

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10719/2024

¶22

Kamlesh @ K.k. S/o Shri Kalua, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Govindpura Salempur, Police Station Kudgoan, District Karauli (Raj.).

¶23

(The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail, Dausa).

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶27

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶28

		(2 of 6) [CRLMB-10649/202 ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Arvind Sharma Rajneesh Gupta with Ravindra Mavliya Utkarsh Goyal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Devi Singh, PP D.S. Bagadia

¶29

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶30

Order

¶31

07/11/2024

¶32

S.B. Crl. Misc. Bail Application No.10222/2024 &10719/2024

¶33

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 179/2023 registered at Police Station Mehandipur Balaji, District Dausa for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 365 and 302 of IPC.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the accusedpetitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that the main allegation of causing injuries to the deceased Niranjan are against other accused Hari Ram, Sita Ram, Puran and Manko Bai. It is also contended that Balram who is eye witness in the present case in his statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that alongwith Hari Ram, Sita Ram, Puran and Manko Bai, 8 to 10 other persons were also present and name of these 8 to 10 persons were not mentioned by eye-witness Balram. It is also contended that police did not conduct any identification parade. The main eye witness Balram has not named the present accused

¶35

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶36

(3 of 6)

¶37

petitioners in the alleged crime and police has implicated accused petitioners in

¶38

the present case, without substantiating the fact by conducting the identification parade. There is no direct or in direct evidence available on the record indicating the involvement of the present accused petitioners in the alleged crime. In the CCTV footage also the presence of the present petitioners were not found. It is also contended that similarly placed co-accused Dharmilal Bairwa, Rinku Kumar, Shyamveer Mahawar, Naresh Kumar Meena, Munesh Kumar Meena, Gautam Meena have been enlarged on bail vide orders dated 08.08.2024, 19.03.2024 and 11.03.2024 respectively. Accused petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶39

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail applications. It is argued that the accused petitioners were actively involved in conspiracy to abduct and causing death of deceased Niranjan. The presence of the present petitioners at the place of occurrence was corroborated with the mobile details collected by the investigating agency. It is also argued that police has not conducted the investigation in proper manner and kept investigation pending against the other co-accused Manko Bai and Puran, despite the fact that eye-witness Balram and deceased’s father Kalu Ram gave positive statements regarding their culpability in the alleged crime. It is apparent from the call details that all the present petitioners were at the place of occurrence. It is also contended that deceased was brutally beaten and has sustained 14 injuries,

¶40

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶41

(4 of 6)

¶42

which resulted into his death, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, bail applications of petitioners deserve to be dismissed.

¶43

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

¶44

This court vide order dated 08.08.2024 enlarged the coaccused Dharmilal, Shyamveer and Rinku on bail. Prior to acceptance of bail application of above stated three accusedpetitioners, this court also allowed the bail applications of the other co-accused Munesh and Gautam. After perusing the statements of the eye-witness Balram, it is evident that he has not named the petitioners in the alleged crime though Balram has stated that alongwith the main accused Hari Ram, Sita Ram and Manko Bai, other 8 to 10 persons were also present and they after beating the deceased Niranjan left his body at the place of occurrence. The police has not conducted any identification parade from the witness Balram regarding active participation of the present petitioners in the alleged crime. Deceased’s father Kalu Ram and his uncle Manoj Meena in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have stated that deceased Niranjan uttered name of co-accused Hari Ram, Sita Ram, Puran and Manko Bai and also stated that therein 8 to 10 other persons were also present alongwith the main accused. The police has not conducted any identification parade from the sole eye witness Balram who could have identified other real culprits. Solely on the analysis of mobile records it cannot be ascertained at this stage that the present accused petitioners were actively involved in causing murder of deceased Niranjan. It is not desirable for this court to further comment anything upon the merits of the case.

¶45

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶46

(5 of 6)

¶47

Therefore, considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶48

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Kamlesh @ K.k. S/o Shri Kalua and Yadram @ Ranga S/o Shri Ramjilal, in connection with FIR No. 179/2023 registered at Police Station Mehandipur Balaji, District Dausa shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish 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.

¶49

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10649/2024

¶50

As far as involvement of present accused petitioner Hari Ram is concerned eye-witness Balram, deceased’s father Kalu Ram and his uncle Manoj Meena in their statements before police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have clearly mentioned him as one of the culprit alongwith the other co-accused Manko Devi, Sita Ram and Puran.

¶51

Therefore, considering statement of the above named witnesses this court is not inclined to enlarge the accusedpetitioner Hari Ram on bail.

¶52

Accordingly, instant bail application of Hari Ram stands dismissed with the liberty to file afresh after recording of the

¶53

[CRLMB-10649/2024]

¶54

(6 of 6)

¶55

statements of the eye-witness Balram, deceased’s father Kalu Ram and his uncle Manoj Meena.

¶56

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶57

ashu/15-17

Hariram S/O Kalyansahay v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hariram S/O Kalyansahay 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

Raisahal Vs Rameshwar and Ors.

Shimbhu Vs Shimbhudayal and Ors.

State Vs Hari Shanker

Sangeeta @ Chipakli W/O Sukhveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Waqar Yonus S/O Shri Abrar Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Son of Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan