Allowed

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2024CRLMB/2195/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder FIR. The court found the deceased had entered the applicants' residence at night to take away the first applicant's wife, injuries were not on vital parts, and a right of private defence under Section 100 IPC was plausible; both applicants enlarged on bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17744]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2195/2024

¶4

Krishan Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Bharwana, PS Gogamedi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Raj.

¶5

Vijendra S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 01, Bharwana, PS Gogamedi, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Raj.

¶6

(Lodged In Sub Jail, Bhadra)

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PradeepKumar Shah
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor
	Mr. Rakesh Matoria, for the complainant

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

23/04/2024

¶15

The present bail application has been preferred by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 163/2023 registered at Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 302, 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants contended that the deceased (Mandeep) was not murdered and as a matter of fact, he sustained the injuries, when the applicants tried to defend

[2024:RJ-JD:17744]

[CRLMB-2195/2024]

(2 of 5)

Rajbala, wife of the applicant no.1 – Krishan Kumar from being abducted. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the statement of Arman and Manjeet recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and highlighted that as per these persons, who are prosecution witnesses, the day previous to the date of incident, the deceased (Mandeep) had told them that he would go and bring Rajbala with him.

¶21

Learned counsel took the Court through the injury report of Rajbala and argued that she had suffered injuries, for which an FIR came to be registered at her instance. 4. It was vehemently argued that the injuries caused to the deceased were in mutual scuffle and essentially in order to save Rajbala from being forcefully abducted. Learned counsel submitted that in such process, if the deceased has suffered injuries, their act or action would fall within the ambit of the Explanation Fifth of Section 100 of Indian Penal Code, as the assault was made with an intention to prevent Rajbala’s kidnapping/abduction.

¶22

Learned counsel then navigated the Court through the Call Detail Report of the deceased so also the applicants and pointed out that during the period (1:35 a.m. to 3:07 a.m.), the location of the applicants and the deceased was the same (house of Om Prakash S/o Jita Ram, Village Bharwan – the tower that emits signals in or around the applicant’s residence) and contended that in any event, the deceased had trespassed in the house of the applicants in order to accomplish his object of taking away Rajbala (wife of the applicant no.1), hence, the applicants cannot be held guilty of murder.

[2024:RJ-JD:17744]

[CRLMB-2195/2024]

(3 of 5)

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and while refuting the stance taken by the applicants, they argued that even if the stand of the applicants is taken to be correct, then also, the injuries inflicted by the applicants to the deceased were disproportionate to the force required to ward off the apprehension of abduction and therefore, no indulgence be granted.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶28

On perusal of the record, more particularly the statement of Arman and Manjeet, it is clear that the deceased Mandeep had gone to the residence of the applicants with an intention to take Rajbala with him. Faced with or confronted with such eventuality, if they stopped or even assaulted the deceased, who had broken in their house in wee hours, their action has to be examined and dealt with in the backdrop of the facts. Every person in such a situation would restrain the aggressor from abducting his wife.

¶29

Whatever maybe the circumstances, considering that the deceased had ventured to enter the applicant's residence and that too post mid-night (1:07 a.m.), neither can such attempt rather aggression be taken lightly nor can the action rather reaction of the applicants be considered abnormal or disproportionate.

¶30

That apart, post mortem report reveals that multiple injuries have been caused but none of them is on vital part of the body and no sharp weapon has been used.

[2024:RJ-JD:17744]

[CRLMB-2195/2024]

(4 of 5)

There is enough evidence of relationship between the deceased and Rajbala; hence, during the course of mutual scuffle or fight, if some minor or major injuries have been caused to the deceased, to which he had succumbed, he cannot be said to have been murdered. This Court feels that the indiction of causing death of the assailants (the deceased) who had come with the oblique motive to kidnap wife of the applicant no.1 is difficult nay impossible to be proved. The applicants have a plausible ground to defend themselves, namely right of private defence enumerated in Fifth description to Section 100 of IPC.

¶35

Hence, keeping the applicants behind the bars, until the conclusion of trial would be violative of their right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 13. As a consequence of discussion foregoing, this court is inclined to enlarge both the applicants, who are behind the bars since 11.08.2023 on bail.

¶36

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicants (1) Krishan Kumar S/o Om Prakash; and (2) Vijendra S/o Om Prakash arrested in connection with the FIR No. 163/2023 registered at Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond each in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 15. Applicants shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶37

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the

[CRLMB-2195/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:17744]

(5 of 5)

Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶42

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶43

443-Mak/-

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Krishan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lac Robin Vs Union of India

Munna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Buddha Ram Choudhary Vs Union of India

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nanku Vs State of Rajasthan