Dismissed

Dashrat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2024CRLMB/2945/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the second bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 IPC. The court found no change in circumstances since the dismissal of the first bail application and noted that the application was filed without recording the statements of eye witnesses as previously directed. Considering the gravity of the offences

What the court decided

AI extract

Dashrat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:12002]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2945/2024

¶4

Dashrat Singh S/o Bajarang Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Manawa Police Station Gachhipura, Dist. Didwana - Kuchaman, Rajasthan.

¶5

(At Present Applicant Confined In Nagaur Jail)

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gulab Sabir Pinjara
	Mr. Shashank Pancholi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vikram Sharma,P.P.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

13/03/2024

¶14

This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.57/2023 registered at Police Station Gachipura, Dist. Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 302/34 IPC.

¶15

The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.07.2023 while granting him liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident namely Pintu and Seta Ram.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with the coaccused person namely Kishan Singh brutally assaulted the

[2024:RJ-JD:12002]

[CRLMB-2945/2024]

(2 of 3)

deceased Sumit on 29.04.2023. Deceased Sumit succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

¶21

Drawing attention of the Court towards challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no intention to commit the alleged crime. The alleged incident occurred due to a sudden fight between the parties at instant provocation. Thus, it does not constitute any liability under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel further submitted that investigation against the petitioner has already been completed; the petitioner is in judicial custody and trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind Bars for an indefinite period. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶22

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there is specific and direct allegation of assault against the petitioner. The injuries inflicted by the petitioner upon the deceased are the cause of death of the deceased. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that at the time of deciding the first bail application, liberty was granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after the statements of Pintu and Seta Ram are recorded. However, the present bail application has been moved without recording of the statements of the aforementioned eye witnesses of the incident before the competent criminal court.

¶23

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there is no change in circumstance in the matter after rejection of the first bail

[CRLMB-2945/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:12002]

(3 of 3)

application moved on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner has preferred the second bail application without recording of the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident namely Pintu and Seta Ram before the competent criminal court. This Court also prima facie finds that there is a specific allegation of assault against the present petitioner. Thus, looking to the seriousness of the offences and looking to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application is dismissed.

¶29

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶30

52-Prashant

Dashrat Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Dashrat Singh 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

Javed Siddiqui Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilip Kumar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ritesh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Ayyub Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan