Allowed

Dhanrajh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 May 2024CRLMB/2642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to two petitioners charged with murder (Sections 302, 323, 34 IPC). The Court relied on the hostile statements of prosecution witnesses, lack of evidence regarding motive, and absence of apprehension regarding witness tampering or flight risk.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners were enlarged on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:21560]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2639/2024

¶4

Bherulal S/o Shri Manji, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sovni P.s. Devgarh Dist. Pratapgarh. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Ishwarlal Alias Ashok S/o Gordhan, R/o Tofkheda P.s. Rathanjana Dist. Pratapgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2642/2024 Dhanrajh S/o Shri Rajmal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sovni P.s. Devgarh, Dist. Pratapgarh.

¶12

(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Pratapgarh).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ishwarlal @ Ashok S/o Gordhan, R/o Tofkheda P.s. Rathanjana Dist. Pratapgarh.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER

¶19

14/05/2024

¶20

These two second applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.83/2023 registered at Police Station Devgarh, District Pratapgarh, for offences under Sections 302, 323 and 34 IPC.

[2024:RJ-JD:21560]

[CRLMB-2639/2024]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, petitioners are guilty of committing murder of one Pankaj, who was allegedly having illicit relations with the wife of the accused-petitioner namely Bheru Lal. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the complainant – Ishwarlal @ Ashok (PW-06) have been recorded before the competent criminal court on 14.02.2024. The complainant during his court statements has not supported the prosecution story.

¶25

Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the statements of the eye-witness of the incident namely Smt. Nani (PW-01), recorded before the competent criminal court to state that the eye witness of the incident has also not supported the prosecution story during her court statements and has turned hostile. Further attention of the Court was drawn towards the other material witnesses of the case namely Ramchandra (PW-02) , Vijay Lal (PW-03), Yuvraj (PW-04) and Bhaiyalal (PW-05) to urge that these witnesses have also not supported the prosecution story during their court statements and have turned hostile.

¶26

Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the post mortum report of the deceased dated 06.05.2023, to contend that as per the post-mortum report, the petitioners caused injuries with a sharp weapon, however, during the course of investigation, only one lathi (blunt weapon) and belt has been recovered.

¶27

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had no motive to commit the alleged crime. The statements of material witnesses have already been recorded before the competent

[2024:RJ-JD:21560]

[CRLMB-2639/2024]

(3 of 4)

criminal court and therefore, now there is no apprehension of petitioners influencing them or tampering with the evidence. The petitioners are in judicial custody, and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶32

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶33

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

¶34

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that statements of material witnesses of the case have already been recorded before the competent criminal court and these witnesses have not supported the prosecution story during their court statements. This Court also prima facie finds that no evidence of motive for the petitioners to commit the alleged crime is available on record. The prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioners influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶35

Accordingly, these second bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners(i) Bherulal S/o Shri Manji and (ii) Dhanrajh S/o Shri Rajmal shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.83/2023 registered at Police Station Devgarh, District Pratapgarh, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-

[CRLMB-2639/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:21560]

(4 of 4)

with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶40

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.

¶41

A copy of this order be placed in both the files.

¶42

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶43

14-TarunGoyal/-

Dhanrajh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanrajh 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

Krishan Kumar Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan

Premlata Vs Arun Kumar

Bhaga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hukma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bherulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhagu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan