Allowed

Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/O Ramswaroop v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Aug 2024CRLMB/3502/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application of an accused charged with murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC after charge-sheeting. Both eyewitnesses had turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, and the firearm injury was attributed to the co-accused. Court granted bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted: personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each; release ordered subject to appearing before trial court on all dates.

Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/O Ramswaroop… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34586]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No.3502/2024

¶4

Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Mundala Bisauti, Police Station Atru, District Baran (Raj.) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Baran)

¶5

---Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, P.P. Mr. Anshuan Saxena, Adv., for complainant.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶11

14/08/2024

¶12

The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.347/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for the offences under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application (No.13241/2023) was dismissed on the premise that two eye-witnesses namely Hansraj and Umesh Nagar have described the role of the petitioner in commission of the crime. Learned counsel further submits that both eye-witnesses have been examined in the course of trial and they have not supported the prosecution case. They have been declared hostile. Learned

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:34586]

[CRLMB-3502/2024]

counsel further submits that allegation of causing fire arm injury on the deceased is against the co-accused and fire arm has already been recovered at his instance. Learned counsel further submits that there are three other criminal antecedents against the petitioner and he is on bail in two cases and in one case, he has been acquitted. The petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the second bail application and submits that though the two eye-witnesses namely Hansraj and Umesh Nagar have not supported the prosecution case, but other evidence is available on record to show the fact that murder of the deceased was committed by the petitioner and co-accused. They further submit that presence of the petitioner is established at the place of incident from his call location. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is also evident from record that there was land dispute between the deceased and the petitioner, therefore, motive is well established. Learned counsel further submits that statements given to the Police as well as learned Magistrate during the course of investigating under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. have been admitted by both these witnesses in their cross-examination conducted by the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶19

I have considered the contentions.

¶20

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned

[2024:RJ-JP:34586]

[CRLMB-3502/2024]

(3 of 3)

counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that both the eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution case; they have been declared hostile and the fact that according to the prosecution case; allegation of causing fire arm injury on the deceased is against the co-accused and fire arm has already been recovered at his instance; petitioner is in custody since long and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

¶25

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/o Ramswaroop shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶26

Office is directed to send copy of this order forthwith to the accused petitioner through concerned Jail Superintendent. Office is also directed to send copy of this order to the concerned trial Court forthwith. After receiving copy of this order, the learned trial Court shall intimate the accused petitioner regarding this bail granting order.

¶27

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶28

MADAN/69

Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/O Ramswaroop v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala S/O Ramswaroop v. the 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

Deepak Private Industrial Institute of Training, Iti Vs State of Rajasthan

Rohini Saini Vs Board of Secondary Education Andanr

M/S Pragya Creation Vs H.D.F.C. Bank Limited

Shankarlal S/O Shri Kanhaiyalal Patel Vs Smt. Sharbati Devi W/O Shri Damodarji

Ankita Kumari Daughter of Shri Mahipal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

A.U. Small Finance Bank Limited Vs Sub Registrar, Registration and Stamp, Jaipur - v