Partly allowed

Laxminarain S/O Shri Balu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2024CRLMB/1662/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the bail applications of Laxminarain and Angoori who faced allegations in the deceased's dying declaration. Conversely, the Court granted bail to Mausam, for whom the deceased has not leveled any allegations.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Petitioner No.2 (Mausam) on personal and two surety bonds; application rejected for Petitioners No.1 and No.3 with liberty to renew.

Laxminarain S/O Shri Balu Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:10628]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1662/2024

¶4

Laxminarain S/o Shri Balu, Aged About 50 Years

¶5

Mausam W/o Shri Maniram D/o Shri Laxminarain, Aged About 24 Years

¶6

Angoori wife of Shri Laxminarain, Aged About 45 Years,

¶7

All residents of Itamada, Police Station Bhusawar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) (Petitioners No.2 & 3 at present lodged in Mahila Bandi Sudhar Grah, Central Jail, Bharatpur)

¶8

----Accused-Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahendra Meena, PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶14

Order

¶15

01/03/2024

¶16

Defects pointed out by the Office stand waived.

¶17

This bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been

¶18

filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No.593/2023 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur wherein they are charged for offences punishable under Section 307 IPC (later on they are charged for offences punishable under Section 306 IPC).

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased used to torture his wife Mausam, hence, she was residing with her parents. Counsel submits that on the fateful

[2024:RJ-JP:10628]

[CRLMB-1662/2024]

(2 of 4)

day, the deceased came at the house of the petitioners and insisted to take his wife Mausam back. Counsel submits that when the petitioners denied to send Mausam with the deceased, then under that on instigation or heat, he poured kerosene on himself and put fire and committed suicide. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely booked in this case. Counsel submits that there is no evidence of instigation or abetment on the part of the petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since the date of their arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners.

¶24

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that on 01.10.2023, the parcha bayan of the deceased was recorded wherein allegations was levelled against the petitioner No.1 Laxminarain and petitioner No.3 Angoori who poured kerosene on the deceased person and put fire on him. He submitted that looking to the dying declaration of the deceased, the petitioners are not entitled to get indulgence of bail.

¶25

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Looking to the fact that the allegations has been levelled against the petitioner No.1-Laxminarain and the petitioner No.3-Angoori by the deceased in his dying declaration

[CRLMB-1662/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:10628]

(3 of 4)

recorded on 01.10.2023, this Court is not inclined to entertained their bail application at this stage. Hence, the bail application of the petitioner No.1-Laxminarain and petitioner No.3-Angoori stands rejected.

¶30

Looking to the fact that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioner No.2-Mausam by the deceased in his dying declaration and trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner No.2-Mausam under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶31

Accordingly, this bail application of the petitioner No.2 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner No.2 Mausam W/o Shri Maniram arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

However, the petitioner No.1 Laxminarain and petitioner No.3 Angoori would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after recording statements of the material witnesses namely Balu, Harikishan, Bodan Singh, Kishori and Lalaram. Their statements be recorded on priority basis.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:10628]

[CRLMB-1662/2024]

Accordingly, in view of the above-mentioned directions,

¶37

the instant bail application stands disposed of.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

MR/23

Laxminarain S/O Shri Balu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxminarain S/O Shri Balu 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

Sheru @ Sher Mauhammad S/O Jagmal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Jangid S/O Shri Chitarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Samota S/O Shri Omprakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Narayan Alias Ganesh S/O Late Shri Moolchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranvindarsingh S/O Shri Jarnelsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Sharma S/O Shri Ram Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan