Allowed

Vishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Feb 2024CRLMB/308/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC. The applicant, a passenger in a vehicle that hit a police jeep, was not charged with an overt act. The court held he is entitled to bail despite the pendency of 70 pending cases.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Vishna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:9316]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 308/2024

¶4

Vishna Ram S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Sundanagar, Jaloda, P.s. Lohawat, Dist. Phalodi. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Phalodi).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

22/02/2024

¶13

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.284/2023 registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 307, 332, 353, 427, 440, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of PDPP Act.

¶14

Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present applicant has been involved absolutely in a false case.

¶15

He submitted that even if the story projected by the informant, who is none other than SHO in the Police department is taken to be correct, that a Scorpio vehicle hit the Police jeep, then also such vehicle which allegedly hit the Police vehicle was being

[2024:RJ-JD:9316]

[CRLMB-308/2024]

(2 of 4)

driven by co-accused Gopi Krishan, who has been enlarged on bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.11.2023 being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14675/2023. He added that there is no reason for which the present applicant, who was siting in the vehicle, maybe trying to flee, be kept behind the bars for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that applicant is a habitual and dreaded criminal and as many as 70 cases are pending against him.

¶21

He was however, not in a position to satisfy how any case against present applicant is made out under Section 307 of IPC, particularly when the offending vehicle was being driven by coaccused Gopi Krishan.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor attracted Court’s attention towards Mechanical Inspection Report dated 23.08.2023 and argued that condition of the Police vehicle clearly shows that serious threshing was given to it. He prayed that bail be not granted to the present applicant.

¶23

Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant argued that not only the allegation in the FIR even a false MTR has been prepared by the Police inasmuch as no part or broken piece of vehicle was recovered.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

It is admitted case of the prosecution that the applicant was trying to flee and he was siting in the Scorpio vehicle, which was being driven by co-accused Gopi Krishan. It is not the case of the

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:9316]

[CRLMB-308/2024]

prosecution that Gopi Krishan-driver of the vehicle hit the Police vehicle at the instruction/instigation or command of the present applicant.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid and considering that the applicant was siting as a passenger in the Scorpio vehicle, which dashed the Police Vehicle and no overt act has been assigned to him, this Court is of the view, that the applicant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶31

So far as pendency of 70 odd cases is concerned, this Court is of the view that had there been any overt act or motive/role of the applicant, such factor would have weighed heavily in the mind of the Court but in the facts peculiar and considering what has been noticed hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to keep applicant incarcerated till indefinite period.

¶32

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Vishna Ram S/o Mohan Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.284/2023 registered at Police Station Lohawat, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 13. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶33

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:9316]

[CRLMB-308/2024]

independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶38

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶39

4-raksha/-

Vishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishna Ram 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

Archana Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Hapoo Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jugal Kishor Bareth Vs the State of Rajasthan

Yashpal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivcharan Regar Vs State of Rajasthan

Seema Jain Vs State of Rajasthan