Allowed

Shyokaran @ Madya S/O Late, Sh. Jansiram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2024CRLMB/11148/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a murder FIR where no specific cause of death was ascertained; considering old age of one petitioner and that the other is a woman, and without expressing opinion on merits, the Court enlarged both petitioners on bail on furnishing personal bonds with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 each with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Shyokaran @ Madya S/O Late, Sh. Jansiram Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:38389]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11148/2024

¶4

Shyokaran @ Madya S/o Late, Sh. Jansiram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Andwa, At Naypur Road, Khandar District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawaimadhopur)

¶5

Rameshi W/o Late Sh. Ratankesh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Banotha, At Naypur Road, Khandar District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawaimadhopur)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Teeka Ram Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

10/09/2024

¶14

Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No.126/2024 registered with the Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur for offence under Sections 302, 120-B & 34 of IPC.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased, no cause of death has been ascertained. Counsel further submits that the investigation agency has not come out with any evidence in regard to intention and motive, which is a basic ingredient to prosecute and convict an accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. Counsel also submits

[2024:RJ-JP:38389]

[CRLMB-11148/2024]

(2 of 3)

that one of the witness namely; Smt. Manoji W/o Ramsingh, who is said to have supported the prosecution story to some extent in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, denied the facts in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., which she had stated in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the Police after completion of investigation has submitted the charge-sheet in the matter and the petitioners are no more required for any kind interrogation or recovery. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are in custody since 23.05.2024 and accused-petitioner No.1- Shyokaran @ Madya is of old age of seventy years and petitioner No.2 Rameshi is a woman. Counsel also submits that the trial of the case will take its own time to conclude, therefore, the petitioners may be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that as per the Panchayatnama of the skeleton of the deceased, there is a rope knot around the neck of the deceased, which was attached to the branch of a tree, which shows that the deceased has died an unnatural death. Counsel further submits that the evidence collected by the investigating agency and the recovery made, speak of involvement of the present accused-petitioners in the alleged offence.

¶21

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers.

¶22

Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the

[2024:RJ-JP:38389]

[CRLMB-11148/2024]

(3 of 3)

petitioners and the evidence collected during investigation, so also the fact that no specific cause of death has been ascertained so far and the accused petitioner No.1 Shyokaran @ Madya is of old age of seventy years and petitioner No.2 -Rameshi is a woman, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶27

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

ARTI SHARMA /100

Shyokaran @ Madya S/O Late, Sh. Jansiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyokaran @ Madya S/O Late, Sh. Jansiram 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

Viswajit Roy S/O Shri Shikanto Roy Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Yadav @ Karan S/O Chunnu Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Rasid S/O Rahamdin Vs State of Rajasthan

Vasim S/O Aamin Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishnu Kumar Parihar S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pk @ P S/O Purshottam Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan