Dismissed

Karnidan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 May 2024CRLMB/3794/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur dismissed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by an accused in a murder case. The Court found prima facie evidence of motive based on eye-witness statements and denied bail, directing the petitioner to file a fresh application after Court statements are recorded.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; liberty granted to file fresh application after Court statements are recorded.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:19559]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3794/2024

¶4

Karnidan S/o Late Shri Durgadan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Dandusar, P.s. Jamsar, Dist. Bikaner. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Hari Shanker Shrimali
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SS Rajpurohit,PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Pradeep Choudhary
	Ms. Hemlata Choudhary

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

03/05/2024

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.151/2023, registered at Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 115 and 120-B of IPC.

¶14

As per the prosecution, in the present case, complainantPemaram submitted a written report dated 28.09.2023 at Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner alleging inter alia that owing to some previous animosity, on 25.09.2023, in the evening, the petitioner along with Shubhkaran, Hanuman Ram, Hari Ram, Bhagwan Ram and Ram Lal brutally attacked his father Rameshwar Lal with lathis . The present petitioner and one Hanuman Ram caught hold of Rameshwar Lal and thereafter

[2024:RJ-JD:19559]

[CRLMB-3794/2024]

(2 of 5)

pushed him in front of a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-14-UD-7307 driven by co-accused- Shubhkaran. As per the written report, Shubhkaran, intentionally run the offending vehicle over Rameshwar Lal with an intention to kill him. Rameshwar Lal was taken to PBM hospital, Bikaner, where he succumbed to the injuries caused to him by the accused persons on 28.09.2023.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the FIR in the present case has been lodged after a delay of about 3 days from the date of alleged incident which is nothing but an exaggerated version of the incident, roping the petitioner in a false case.

¶20

Drawing attention of the Court towards the charge sheet dated 23.12.2023, submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent criminal court, learned counsel submitted that the Investigating Agency, after conducting a thorough investigation in the present case, has not found, the incident narrated in the written complaint submitted by the complainant, to be the correct version of the events which had taken place on the date of incident. The co-accused persons named in the FIR viz. Hanuman Ram, Hari Ram, Bhagwan Ram and Ram Lal have not been found involved in the commission of the alleged crime. Rather, they have not even been charge sheeted by the Investigating Agency for the alleged crime.

¶21

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that as per the charge-sheet dated 23.12.2023 submitted by the Investigating Agency before the competent criminal court, the specific allegation of running the offending vehicle in a high speed over deceased-

[CRLMB-3794/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:19559]

(3 of 5)

Rameshwar Lal has been levelled against the co-accusedSubhkaran. As per the charge-sheet, on the date of alleged incident, co-accused- Subhkaran, owing to some previous animosity and on being exhorted/provoked by the present petitioner, had run the offending vehicle over the petitioner. The offending vehicle has also been recovered at the instance of coaccused- Subhkaran only.

¶26

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident namely Abhimanyu, Licchman Ram, Bega Ram etc., recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, learned counsel contended that there are stark contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses, which cast serious doubts on prosecution’s story as well as make the presence of the petitioner at the place of incident on the day of incident and his involvement in commission of the alleged crime doubtful. Learned counsel submitted that there are no independent witness of the case so as to connect the petitioner with the commission of the alleged crime and as a matter of fact, the petitioner was very much present in the hospital at the time when deceased- Rameshwar Lal was undergoing treatment. The presence of the petitioner at the place of incident has been established through the interested witnesses only.

¶27

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has already been filed against him and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time.

[2024:RJ-JD:19559]

[CRLMB-3794/2024]

(4 of 5)

On the strength of the aforesaid contentions as well as the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, they implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶32

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They jointly submitted that in the present case, there is a specific allegation against the present petitioner of provoking and abetting the co-accused- Shubhkaran to run the vehicle over the deceased- Rameshwar Lal. The presence of the petitioner at the place of incident has been clearly established through the statements of the eye-witnesses. They thus, prayed that the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of bail in the present case.

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

¶34

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that though there are some contradictions in the written complaint submitted by the complainant- Pemaram, who is son of the deceased and the findings/conclusions arrived at by the Investigating Agency in the charge sheet submitted by it before the competent criminal court, however, a bare perusal of the statements of the eye-witnesses and the material produced by the Investigating Agency with the charge sheet would indicate that a motive for the petitioner to have committed the alleged crime is prima facie established in the present case. The statements of the eye witnesses are an important piece of evidence which cannot be discarded by this

(5 of 5)

[2024:RJ-JD:19559]

[CRLMB-3794/2024]

Court at this stage, when the trial against the petitioner has yet not commenced and the eye-witnesses have not even appeared in the witness box. It is to be noticed that all the eye-witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not only shown the presence of the petitioner at the place of incident but have also stated that the present petitioner has fully participated in commission of the alleged crime.

¶39

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

¶40

Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after Court statements of the eye witnesses are recorded before the competent criminal court.

¶41

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶42

62-TarunGoyal/-

Karnidan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnidan 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

Sandeep Kumar Meel Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kharol Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Sanjay Sarwaswat Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prince Vyas Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Vs State of Rajasthan