Allowed

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Mar 2024CRLMB/1895/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allows bail for three petitioners charged with murder and conspiracy. The court noted they were implicated only on suspicion, not named in the FIR, and found no specific overt acts alleged against them. Relying on a prior order releasing a co-accused, the court granted bail requiring personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12329]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1894/2024

¶4

Yashpal S/o Kanhaiyalal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 32 D- Block, Govardhan Vilas, Ps Savina, Dist Udaipur, Raj. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1895/2024 Rakesh S/o Laluram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kalarohi Sisarma Ps Nai, Dist Udaipur, Raj (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1896/2024 Jitendra @ Anna S/o Fakirchand, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Piploda Near Asthal Temple, Ward No. 08, Ps, Dist Ratlam (Mp)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gopal Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP assisted by Mr. Prakash Panwar

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶22

15/03/2024

¶23

These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023 registered at Police Station Nai, Dist. Udaipur, for

[2024:RJ-JD:12329]

[CRLMB-1894/2024]

(2 of 4)

the offences punishable under Sections 115, 120-B, 302, 143 of the IPC.

¶28

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

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case; the petitioners have not been named in the FIR and there is no evidence of previous animosity between the petitioners and the complainant on the face of the record of the case. Learned counsel further submits that the coaccused person namely Bharat Singh in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.820/2024 has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024. The order dated 28.02.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

¶30

“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.36/2023, registered at Police Station Nai, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 115, 302, 143 and 120B IPC.

¶31

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

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case; the petitioner has not named in the FIR; there is no evidence of previous animosity between the petitioner and the complainant.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the statements of one Vinod Teli under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded in which he stated that he had eavesdropped & found that the accused persons were making a plan to murder the complainant.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of Vinod Teli are not trustworthy because it is highly improbable that the accused persons will make a plan to murder the complainant in front of so many people, sitting at a tea stall.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no specific allegation or overt act at the instance of the petitioner has been alleged in the chargesheet; the present petitioner is in judicial custody since

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:12329]

[CRLMB-1894/2024]

29.08.2023; challan has already been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accusedpetitioner.

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

¶41

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court in prima facie finds that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case as an accused solely on the basis of suspicion; the petitioner has not named in the FIR; no specific allegation or overt act of the petitioner has been alleged in the charge-sheet. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶42

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accusedpetitioner Bharat Singh S/o Madho Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.36/2023, registered at Police Station Nai, District Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.”

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the cases of the present petitioners are not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail. It is further contended that no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners; the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶44

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail applications and submitted that looking to the seriousness and nature of the allegations against the present petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-accused person has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2024.

[CRLMB-1894/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:12329]

(4 of 4)

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioners have not named in the FIR; the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion; coaccused person namely Bharat Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.02.202 and the case of the present petitioners is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person. This Court also prima facie finds that no specific allegation or overt act of the petitioners have been alleged in the charge-sheet. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted.

¶49

Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Yashpal S/o Kanhaiyalal, (2) Rakesh S/o Laluram and (3) Jitendra

¶50

@ Anna S/o Fakirchand arrested in connection with 36/2023 registered at Police Station Nai, Dist. Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶51

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶52

20-divya/-

Rakesh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh 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

Hardeva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal @ Banshi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Jivan Vs State of Rajasathan

Arjun Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangilal Vyas Vs State