Allowed

Sanju v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 May 2024CRLMB/1834/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application for a woman arrested for allegedly causing her father's death by lathi blow. The sole eye-witness, petitioner's mother, turned hostile in court testimony. The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail with a personal bond and sureties without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Sanju Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:22837]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1834/2024

¶4

Sanju D/o Baksa Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Binawas, Ps Kaparda, Dist Jodhpur, Raj. (Lodged In Dist Jail, Nagaur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shah assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mohd. Javed Gauri, PP Mr. Prakash Panwar, AGA
	Mr. Anand Khichi

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

21/05/2024

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.213/2023 registered at Police Station Pachodi, Dist. Nagaur, for the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a daughter of the deceased- Baksa Ram. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, in order to retaliate the stubborn attitude of her father, on the relevant day and time, the petitioner inflicted lathi blow on head of her father and as a result, he succumbed to the injuries on 26.11.2023.

¶15

Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid incident was witnessed by the mother of the petitioner namely Omi Devi.

[CRLMB-1834/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:22837]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the present bail application, statements of the sole eye-witness of the incident- Omi Devi have already been recorded before the competent criminal court on 18.05.2024. as PW-02.

¶20

Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the statements of Omi Devi, learned counsel submitted that Omi Devi, being the sole eye-witness of the incident, during her court statements, has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. It was submitted that since Omi Devi has turned hostile, there are very bleak chances of the petitioner getting convicted in the present case.

¶21

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 16.12.2023 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶22

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegation levelled against the present petitioner, she does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, they were not in a position to refute the fact that sole eye-witness of the case has turned hostile during her court statements.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶24

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that sole eye witness of the incident, during her court statements has not

[2024:RJ-JD:22837]

[CRLMB-1834/2024]

(3 of 3)

supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case she is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶29

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sanju D/o Baksa Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.213/2023 registered at Police Station Pachodi, Dist. Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for her appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶30

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶31

7-divya/-

Sanju v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanju 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

Bharat Kumar @ Bhudra Vs State of Rajasthan

Bishnaram @ Vishnu Vs State of Rajasthan

Harbansh Kaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Keshu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Nath Vs State of Rajasthan