Allowed

Ram Jivan v. State of Rajasathan

Rajasthan HC14 Mar 2024CRLMB/2242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. finding prima facie that the petitioner was not named in the FIR, absent specific role evidence in challan, and no recovery was effected. Call location did not match crime scene, creating suspicion of absence. No flight risk apprehended.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

Ram Jivan Vs State of Rajasathan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12066]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2242/2024

¶4

Ram Jivan S/o Hariram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Dhorimanna Teh Dhorimanna, Dist Badmer. (Lodged In Central Jail Barmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasathan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anand Purohit – Sr.Adv.
	Mr. Mayank Roy
	Mr. Jagdish Kumar Vishnoi
	Mr. Pravesh Kumar Rawla
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.K.Bhati - PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

14/03/2024

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.63/2021 registered at Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 302/149 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, on 26.2.2021, at about 8:00 P.M., the present petitioner alongwith the co-accused persons brutally assaulted one Naina Ram, who was going home in a bolero camper vehicle. In the aforesaid incident, Naina Ram succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in a

[2024:RJ-JD:12066]

[CRLMB-2242/2024]

(2 of 4)

hospital whereas, other co-occupants of the vehicle viz. Jaswant, Omprakash and Chaina Ram sustained injuries.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the statements of Chaina Ram (PW-1), Nemichand (PW-2), Omprakash (PW-3) and Jaswant (PW-4) have already been recorded before competent criminal court. He further submitted that these witnesses have made gross improvements in their testimony. Drawing attention of the Court towards FIR and Challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the FIR was lodged by the complainant – Chaina Ram (PW-1) against Deva Ram, Hanuman, Harish, Uda Ram, Farsa Ram, Shankar Ram, Megha Ram, Pema Ram, Mohan Ram and 4-5 unnamed persons. These witnesses were known to the petitioner from long back yet in the FIR, the presence of the petitioner at the place of the incident was not disclosed at the time of filing of the FIR. The petitioner has been named by these witnesses only with a view to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that even the police during investigation did not find any involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime and he was not charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 325, 149 IPC.

¶20

Attention of the Court was further drawn towards various other documents attached with the case file to show that no recovery has been effected from the present petitioner.

¶21

Learned counsel further contended that there is no evidence showcasing involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime.

[2024:RJ-JD:12066]

[CRLMB-2242/2024]

(3 of 4)

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.4.2023; investigation is likely to take time; no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period.

¶26

On these grounds, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail by this Court.

¶27

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submitted that though the name of the petitioner was not disclosed in the FIR, however the injured/eye-witnesses of the incident in their statements recorded before competent criminal court, have named the petitioner as an assailant in the alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor thus requested the Court that the present bail application may be rejected.

¶28

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

¶29

Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR, though the record of the case indicates that he was known to the complainant previously. This Court also prima facie finds that the investigating agency at the time of submitting the challan before the competent criminal court, did not find any specific role, involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime; and no recovery has been effected at the instance of the present petitioner. On a close scrutiny of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that the call location of the petitioner at the time of alleged incident does not match with the place of occurrence and thus, the same creates a

[2024:RJ-JD:12066]

[CRLMB-2242/2024]

(4 of 4)

suspicion about his presence at the crime scene. This Court also prima facie finds that statements of the material witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing away from justice in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶34

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Ram Jivan S/o Hariram shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.63/2021 registered at Police Station Dhorimanna, District Barmer, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶35

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

¶36

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶37

19-TarunGoyal/-

Ram Jivan v. State of Rajasathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Jivan v. State of Rajasathan

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

Ritesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Ayyub Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Hardeva Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Lal @ Banshi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaukat Vs State of Rajasthan