Allowed

Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/O Pappuram, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Jan 2024CRLMB/130/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Upman granted bail to Neeraj Kumar accused in an FIR relating to murder and injuries. He was arrested in connection with offences under IPC Sections 302, 323, 341, 34 and Arms Act. The court considered the absence of criminal antecedents and the petitioner's role, allowing the application on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

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

Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/O Pappuram, Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 130/2024

¶3

Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/o Pappuram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Bamanwas Pattikalan, P.s. Bamanwas, District Gangapurcity, Rajasthan (Accused Confined In Sub Jail, Gangapurcity)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Rahil Kalam For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun for complainant

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶10

Order

¶11

11/01/2024

¶12

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.254/2023 registered at Police Station Bamanwas, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. Later on, police filed the chargesheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 120B of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶13

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that there is no overt act of the petitioner. He submits that complainant of this case is not an eye-witness. According to the statement of the eye-witnesses, allegation of causing knife

¶14

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-130/2024]

¶15

injury is against co-accused - Aneesh @ Chinta. He further submits that petitioner who is elder brother of Aneesh @ Chinta has falsely been implicated in this case and no recovery has been made at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that petitioner is a young boy of 19 years. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 28.08.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed in this case and trial will take considerable time. He also contends that further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶16

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is evidence available on record which shows that petitioner has instigated coaccused - Aneesh @ Chinta to cause injury on the person of the deceased.

¶17

I have considered the contentions.

¶18

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 no role has been attributed to the petitioner and mere presence of the petitioner is being shown near the place of incident; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶19

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/o Pappuram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CRLMB-130/2024]

¶22

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.

¶23

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 Sunday of every month, till trial is concluded. 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.

¶24

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶25

DEEPA RANI-86

Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/O Pappuram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neeraj Kumar @ Kala S/O Pappuram, 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

Kaluram S/O Sh. Badhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Gupta S/O Shri Raju Gupta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Surendra @ Golu S/O Matkuliram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramroop S/O Pyarelal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Dayal Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ganpati Devi W/O Sh. Sagarmal D/O Suvaram Vs the State of Rajasthan