Allowed

Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMB/340/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder and other offences in a vehicular accident case, citing a verified compromise between the deceased's family members. The court observed that the accusation for culpable homicide is difficult to prove due to the potential for hostility.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Radheyshyam Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6643]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 340/2024

¶4

Radheyshyam S/o Dhanna Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Padhela, Police Station Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunun. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Merta)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. DalipRajvi
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP Mr. Rajesh Saharan for the complainant
		Mr. Budharam father of the deceased
		present inperson

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

08/02/2024

¶13

This II^nd bail application 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.275/2023, registered at Police Station Degana, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 302, 279, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).

¶14

A charge-sheet has been filed against the applicant for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 279, 304, 109/34, 427 and 379/120-B of the IPC and Sections 4/21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

[2024:RJ-JD:6643]

[CRLMB-340/2024]

(2 of 3)

The first bail application being (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15702/2023) filed on behalf of the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn on 20.12.2023.

¶19

Mr. Rajvi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the deceased – Raju Ram died in a vehicular accident and the applicant may at the worst can be held guilty of negligent driving, (punishable under Section 299 of the IPC), but not under Section 304 of the IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel further submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and in the meantime not only the complainant even the father and wife of the deceased – Raju Ram have entered into a compromise and therefore, the applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application by contending that after thorough investigation, the Investigation Officer has filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and therefore, no indulgence be granted to the applicant.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, including the original compromise between the complainant and the applicant duly verified by the SHO concerned.

¶23

Today, another compromise has been produced in original in which the father and wife of the deceased – Raju Ram have entered into a compromise. The father of the deceased present in Court accepted the factum of compromise and having signed the same without any coercion. He further verified the signatures and

[2024:RJ-JD:6643]

[CRLMB-340/2024]

(3 of 3)

thumb impression of his daughter-in-law (wife of the deceased). The original compromise is taken on record.

¶28

Normally, considering the offence alleged against the applicant, this Court would not have granted any indulgence, simply on the basis of the compromise, but considering that the complainant, enlisted one of the eye-witness in the charge-sheet has entered into a compromise, this Court is of the view that the accusation against the applicant for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC is difficult to be proved, as there is every likelihood that he would turn hostile.

¶29

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Radheyshyam S/o Dhanna Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.275/2023, registered at Police Station Degana, District Nagaur 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. 11. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 12. 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 independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶30

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶31

170-akansha/-

Radheyshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radheyshyam 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

Ram Kumar Bhadhu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nandkishore Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Anuradha Vyas Vs Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya

Indra Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs Punjab National Bank