Allowed

Sahdev Gurjar S/O Sundaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Feb 2024CRLMB/315/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 439 CrPC for two accused in a group assault case. The court noted the main head injury to the injured was attributed to a juvenile already released on bail, other injuries were simple, no prior antecedents, and trial would take time; it enlarged both petitioners on bail.

What did the court decide?

Both petitioners enlarged on bail: personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to appearance before trial court on hearing dates.

Sahdev Gurjar S/O Sundaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:6925]

[CRLMB-315/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 315/2024

¶6

Sahdev Gurjar S/o Sundaram

¶7

Sriram Gurjar S/o Sundaram

¶8

Both Resident Of Village Ulana, Police Station Navya, District Didwana Kuchaman, Presently Resident Of Deragadhi, Johda, Police Station Srimadhopur, District Neem Ka Thana, (At Present Petitioners Confined At Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana)

¶9

----Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Garhwal Mr. Nishant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. CG Chopra, PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶15

Order

¶16

09/02/2024

¶17

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners Sahdev Gurjar & Sriram Gurjar. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 645/2023 registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 341, 323 and 308 of IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the main allegation of causing injury to injuredUmed Singh is attributed to X (juvenile in conflict with law). He also submits that the allegations are omnibus and there is

[2024:RJ-JP:6925]

[CRLMB-315/2024]

(2 of 3)

statements of witnesses that juvenile in conflict with law caused specific injury to the injured Umed Singh. The injuries sustained to injured-Anita Devi was found to be simple and blunt in nature. He also submits that X (juvenile is conflict with law) has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.12.2023 by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board. He further submits that the petitioners is in judicial custody from the date of his arrest and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Therefore, the bail application of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the grant of bail application and contend that the injuries caused by the petitioners and other co-accused to injured- Umed Singh at his head and other body parts are grievous and the concerned medical jurist has opined that injury at ear may be dangerous to life. It is also contended that concerned investigating officer has wrongly taken the statement of injured-Umed Singh as he was not in a position to render his statements. Therefore, considering the injury report of Umed Singh and involvement of the present petitioners alleged in the alleged offence, the bail application filed by the present petitioners may be dismissed.

¶24

Considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the case diary along with injury reports of injured-Umed Singh and Anita Devi.

¶25

In the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Umed Singh, Anita W/o Umed Singh, Ankit S/o Umed Singh and the other independent witness Anil have stated that the injury caused to injured-Umed Singh at his head was caused by X (juvenile in

[2024:RJ-JP:6925]

[CRLMB-315/2024]

(3 of 3)

conflict with law) and other accused persons also assaulted. Thus, the injuries caused to injured- Umed Singh is specifically attributed to X (juvenile in conflict with law). The injuries caused to other injured- Anita Devi was found to be simple and blunt in nature. There is no previous criminal antecedents as against the petitioners. The petitioners are in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time. It is not desirable to comment upon anything on the merits/demerits of the case. I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Sahdev Gurjar S/o Sundaram & Sriram Gurjar S/o Sundaram in connection with FIR No. 645/2023 registered at Police Station Reengus, District Sikar shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish 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 their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶32

81- Mohit

Sahdev Gurjar S/O Sundaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahdev Gurjar S/O Sundaram 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

Asloop S/O Rehmat Vs State of Rajasthan

Laxman Kumawat S/O Chhitarmal Vs State of Rajasthan

Gunesh Meena S/O Hetram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar S/O Late Shri Tarachand Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Dhenwal S/O Ghasee Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Singh S/O Meetha Lal Vs State of Rajasthan