Dismissed

Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 May 2024CRLMB/3256/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by two appellants in a murder case. The court held that eyewitness statements and postmortem report corroborate multiple injuries inflicted by both accused, rejecting the defense argument of a single injury, and refused bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed at this stage.

Kaluram Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24347]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 445/2024

¶4

Vikram Dedar S/o Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 59 Np Shyamgarh, Police Station Sameja Kothi, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)

¶5

(At Present Lodged In District Jail, Hanumangarh)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

Hariram S/o Manphool Ram, R/o Chak 4 Bhm, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3256/2024 Kaluram S/o Sh. Harchand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Dhani Chak 4 Bhm, Rohit Jakhrawali, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj)

¶13

(Presently Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)

¶14

----Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Matoria Mr. Pradeep Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

¶20

Order

¶21

28/05/2024

¶22

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 445/2024 :

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not

¶24

press the present appeal at this stage.

¶25

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:24347]

[CRLAS-445/2024]

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3256/2024 :

¶30

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.545/2018, Police Station Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 148, 302, 302/149, 447, 323, 323/149, 307 & 307/149 of IPC.

¶31

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

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is discrepancy in the statements of eye witnesses as the fire arm injury has been assigned to Vikram Dedar and Kalu Ram, whereas, as per the postmortem report, only single injury of fire arm was found on the body of deceased. Learned counsel submits that there is recovery of Lathi from Kalu Ram and, therefore, he cannot be fastened the liability of having inflicted the fire arm injuries. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for almost five years and six months. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶33

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor submits that as per the statements of injured eye witnesses PW.4 Kani Ram and PW.5 Khiraj, it has come on record that fire arm injuries were inflicted by Vikram Dedar and Kalu Ram. He further submits that consistent version of the prosecution throughout is that the fire arm injuries have been assigned to Vikram Dedar and Kalu Ram. He further submits that as per the postmortem report of the deceased Prithviraj, it has come on record that there are multiple

[2024:RJ-JD:24347]

[CRLAS-445/2024]

(3 of 4)

shot gun entry wounds on the body of the deceased Prithviraj which clearly depicts that multiple fire arm injuries had been suffered by the deceased. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶38

I have considered the submissions made the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case including the postmortem report of the deceased Prithviraj and the statements of two eye injured witnesses PW.4 Kani Ram and PW.5 Khiraj.

¶39

The statements of PW.4 Kani Ram and PW.5 Khiraj clearly show that the fire arm injuries were caused by Kalu Ram and Vikram Dedar. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the multiple shot gun entry wounds are because of the multiple pallets is not correct as per the postmortem report of the deceased Prithviraj which clearly shows that there are multiple shot gun entry wounds on the body of the deceased. The same reads as under :-

¶40

“Multiple shot gun entry wounds of size varying from 2mm x 3mm to 3 mm x 4 mm present over chest at places, abdoman at places, margin of wound are inverted”.

¶41

Therefore, presently, this Court is of the view that ocular evidence in the shape of statements of PW.4 Kani Ram and PW.5 Khiraj is supported by the postmortem report of the deceased and, therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there was single fire arm injury.

¶42

In view of the discussions made above and having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:24347]

[CRLAS-445/2024]

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage.

¶47

Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed at this stage.

¶48

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶49

207-208/SanjayS/-

Kaluram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaluram 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

Kheta Ram Vs Union of India

Mangi Lal Vs Union of India

Hariyala Rajasthan Gaushala Vikash Sansthan Vs the State of Rajasthan

Maruti Guddi Vs State of Rajsthan

Vikram Dedar Vs State of Rajasthan

Satpal Vs the Chairman