Allowed

Parkaram @ Parkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2024CRLMB/279/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The court held that the prosecution case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, conjectures, and surmises without legally admissible proof, warranting the release of the accused.

What did the court decide?

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

Parkaram @ Parkharam Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8437]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 279/2024

¶4

Parkaram @ Parkharam S/o Shri Heeraji, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sindhari, P.s. Ramseen, Dist. Jalore. (Presently Lodged At Sub-Jail Bhinmal).

¶5

Bhootaram S/o Shri Choutharam, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ramseen, P.s. Ramseen, Dist. Jalore. (Presently Lodged At Sub-Jail Bhinmal).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Sheetal	Kumbhat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal	Bishnoi,Dy.G.A.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

19/02/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are

¶14

tabulated herein below:

¶15

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	121/2021
2.	Concerned Police Station	Jaswantpura
3.	District	Jalore
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 143 & 302 of IPC and Section 3(2) (v)of SC/ST Act
5.	Offences added,if any	Section 120-B of IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	15.12.2023

¶16

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:8437]

[CRLMB-279/2024]

to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶22

I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available. I have also perused the challan papers and FSL report dated 07.12.2021 copy of which supplied by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶23

Admittedly, the eye witness account of the incident is not available and the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon so called circumstantial evidence. One of the circumstances as pleaded by the prosecution would be the inimical relationship between the parties, the next would be the recovery of the blood smeared cloth and the third is the confessional statements made by the petitioners and the other accused to the Investigating Officer while in police custody. More or less, the case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures sans any legally admissible evidence. It is story of the prosecution that after commission of the crime the accused persons met with an accident and got inured. If the above story is taken as it is then the very foundation of recovery of blood smeared cloth of the accused would fall on the earth as the preposition cannot be ruled out that the blood may be of the accused himself, since no blood group has been detected in the FSL report. Serious doubt

[2024:RJ-JD:8437]

[CRLMB-279/2024]

(3 of 3)

seems to te a reason behind arrest of the petitioners in the alleged crime, however, it is well nigh settled that suspicion, however, it may grave, cannot be a substitute or legal proof, reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Batham vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR2002 SC 3206 . Simply because of some ordinary kind of tiff cannot be taken as an evidence of motive to kill the deceased. The petitioners are behind the bars since November 2021 and there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. There is no apprehension that he would flee from justice. I see no reason to allow his further incarceration. Thus, taking into account the totality of facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to them 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.

¶29

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶30

33-Samvedana/-

Parkaram @ Parkharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parkaram @ Parkharam 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shambhu Singh Parmar Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Subh Enterprises Vs Sankhala Paints and Building Materials

Mukesh Swami Vs State of Rajasthan