Allowed

Ilmuddin @ Immu S/O Moinuddin @ Latur Chandiwala, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Jan 2024CRLMB/116/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Anil Kumar Upan allowed a bail application filed by the petitioner accused of murder and conspiracy under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The Court held that the prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence, the charge-sheet had been filed, and another co-accused was on bail, making continued custody unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail with personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to standard and specific conditions.

Ilmuddin @ Immu S/O Moinuddin @ Latur… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:4372]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 116/2024

¶4

Ilmuddin @ Immu S/o Moinuddin @ Latur Chandiwala, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Karim Ka Chowk, Hiran Bazar, Chandi Walo Ka Makan, P.S. Makbara, District Kota Junction (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Gadwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

25/01/2024

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.133/2023 registered at Police Station Kishorepura, District Kota City for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Later on, the police filed the charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 302 & 120-B of IPC and Section 5/25 of the Arms Act.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence, however, no incriminating circumstantial evidence is appearing against the petitioner on record. He submits that as per the prosecution story and charge-sheet filed by the

[2024:RJ-JP:4372]

[CRLMB-116/2024]

(2 of 4)

investigating agency, it appears that murder was committed by the co-accused persons namely - Saddam Hussain & Kapil Mirza, who were under the employment of the deceased. He submits that fire arm has been recovered at the instance of the co-accused persons. He further submits that petitioner has been chargesheeted with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC, however, there is no evidence available on record against the petitioner in respect of conspiracy. He submits that no call detail of the petitioner with the co-accused- Saddam Hussain & Kapil Mirza is available on record. He submits that deceased was the hardcore criminal and 20 cases have been registered against him. It is further submitted that coaccused Lokesh Rathore has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13874/2023 and case of the present petitioner is on similar footing. The petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2023 and charge-sheet has been filed in this case. Trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner is not warranted for any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that murder has been committed as petitioner instigated the co-accused persons. He further submits that deceased lodged the FIR against the petitioner and one Lokesh Rathore for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. Later on, another FIR was lodged by the deceased against the petitioner and co-accused Lokesh Rathore alleging that they are making pressure upon him to withdraw the earlier FIR. He submits that 19 other cases have also been registered against the petitioner.

[2024:RJ-JP:4372]

[CRLMB-116/2024]

(3 of 4)

I have considered the contentions.

¶23

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that entire prosecution case is based on the circumstantial evidence and petitioner has been made accused in this case with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC, co-accused Lokesh Rathore has been granted bail by this Court, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and looking to the custody period of the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶24

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Ilmuddin @ Immu S/o Moinuddin @ Latur Chandiwala, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.133/2023 registered at Police Station Kishorepura, District Kota City, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station on first Monday of every month, till trial is

[2024:RJ-JP:4372]

[CRLMB-116/2024]

(4 of 4)

concluded. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number with the SHO of concerned Police Station. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to petitioner by this Court.

¶30

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶31

CHARU SONI /10

Ilmuddin @ Immu S/O Moinuddin @ Latur Chandiwala, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ilmuddin @ Immu S/O Moinuddin @ Latur Chandiwala, 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

Gautam Jatav S/O Damodar Jadav Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhim Singh S/O Shri Sukaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Asru S/O Chahat Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamruddin @ Kamlesh Son of Shri Saleem Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Manraj S/O Gulab Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh S/O Ratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan