Allowed

Raju S/O Shriratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2024CRLMB/13426/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications under Section 483 BNSS for offences including Sections 307 and 4/25 Arms Act. Prosecution failed to produce injured witnesses on multiple dates despite bailable warrants. The court held an accused cannot be detained indefinitely for prosecution lapses and enlarged all petitioners on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to appearing before trial court on all dates.

Raju S/O Shriratan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:49378]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13684/2024

¶4

Mithun S/o Ratanlal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nehru Colony, Nayapura, Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 13426/2024

¶11

1 Raju S/o Shriratan Lal, R/o Naleke Pass, Nehru Colony, District Kota (Raj.) (At Presently Confined In District Jail Kota)

¶12

Ajay S/o Shriraju, R/o Naleke Pass, Nehru Colony, District Kota (Raj.) (At Presently Confined In District Jail Kota)

¶13

Vinod S/o Shriraju, R/o Naleke Pass, Nehru Colony, District Kota (Raj.) (At Presently Confined In District Jail Kota)

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Gadwal
	Mr. Waseem Akram
	Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma with
	Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶20

Order

¶21

02/12/2024

¶22

Both of these bail applications have been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.172/2024, registered at the Police Station Nayapura,

[CRLMB-13684/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:49378]

(2 of 4)

District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 & 34 of IPC.

¶27

The First Bail Application bearing No.6377/2024 filed by the accused- Ajay & Vinod and bail application bearing No.6129/2024 filed by the accused- Raju were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of the injured witnesses.

¶28

Counsels for the petitioners submit that the trial Court framed the charges against the accused-petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325, 326 & 307 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

¶29

On 28.08.2024, both the injured witnesses were summoned for their examination. It is also submitted that the case was fixed for examination of the witnesses before the trial Court on 09.09.2024 then on 23.09.2024, 07.10.2024, 15.10.2024, 18.10.2024, 25.10.2024, 12.11.2024 & 22.11.2024 but the prosecution failed to produce the prosecution witnesses for examination before the learned trial Court even after execution of the bailable warrants.

¶30

Counsels for the petitioners submit that in such circumstances when the prosecution witnesses themselves are not coming up before the trial Court for examination the accusedpetitioners who are in custody since more than five months have been suffered for justice. It is also submitted that Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides for right of speedy trial.

[2024:RJ-JP:49378]

[CRLMB-13684/2024]

(3 of 4)

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and on putting a query learned Public Prosecutor that why the prosecution witnesses are not being produced for examination before the learned trial Court, he is unable to give any satisfactory explanation.

¶35

It is a well-settled principle of the criminal law that an accused cannot be made suffer or continued in detention because of lapses on the part of prosecution in producing the witnesses for examination.

¶36

On consideration of the submissions made by learned counsels for the petitioners and also perusal of the order-sheets of the trial Court, this Court finds the prosecution is failing to produce the prosecution witnesses before the learned trial Court for examination and in such circumstances, the accused cannot be continued in detention for an indefinite period for no fault on their part, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused- petitioners on bail.

¶37

Accordingly, both of these bail applications are, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish 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

¶38

[CRLMB-13684/2024]

¶39

[2024:RJ-JP:49378] (4 of 4)

¶40

called upon to do so.

¶41

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file.

¶42

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶43

DIVYA/36-37

Raju S/O Shriratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Shriratan Lal 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

Smt Gulab Devi Vs Surendra @ Pappu and Anr.

Lalaram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rafiq Chopadar Vs State of Rajasthan through P.P.

Hemant Kumar @ Golu S/O Shri Shankar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hitesh Yadav S/O Manmohan Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas S/O Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan