Dismissed

Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CRLMB/4679/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered bail applications filed by two accused persons arrested for an attempt to murder causing dangerous injuries. The Court found prima facie evidence sufficient to indicate guilt due to serious injuries and witness accounts, declining to grant bail before recording statements of the injured and the eyewitness.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications of petitioners Sunil and Madan Singh dismissed; trial court directed to record statement of injured and eyewitness.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:28930]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8075/2024

¶4

Sunil S/o Sh Brijlal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No 13, Dhani Lalkhan, Tehsil Nohar Distt Hanumangarh Raj. ( At Present Lodged At Sub Jail Nohar Distt Hanumangarh)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4679/2024 Madan Singh S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Lakhasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Nohar)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag Mr. Ganga Ram
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the
	complainant.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Judgment

¶17

16/07/2024

¶18

Petitioners are lugged and locked in F.I.R No. 25/2024 of Police Station Gogamedi District Hanumangarh, for the offence under Section(s) 307, 325,341,323, 143 of the I.P.C. They have filed these applications for restoration of liberty under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶19

Learned counsel representing the petitioners vehemently urged that the petitioners are innocent persons and a false case has been foisted against them; that entire allegations so leveled by the police against the petitioners are totally false and baseless;

[2024:RJ-JD:28930]

[CRLMB-8075/2024]

(2 of 3)

that nothing has been recovered from possession of the petitioners; that there is no concrete evidence to show direct nexus between the petitioners and alleged crime, rather case of the prosecution is based on surmises and conjectures instead of sound legal evidence; Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances the petitioners may be released on bail.

¶24

From the other side, learned Public Prosecutor for the State has strongly objected the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant. It was further argued that there is overwhelming evidence adduced on record which would prima-facie point towards the guilt of the petitioners; that keeping in view the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by them , they do not deserve any leniency, rather they need to be dealt with severely. He thus, prayed that in the facts of the present case, it is expedient that accused be kept in the custody.

¶25

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

¶26

Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having examined the record with reference to the law applicable, I am clearly of the view that on perusal of the record, it is revealed that Medical Jurist had opined one of the injury caused to the injured Suresh Kumar to be dangerous to his life. The injured underwent treatment at local hospital as well as a higher centre at Sirsa, Haryana. The Investigating Officer has not made the treatment record of the hospital at Haryana as part of

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:28930]

[CRLMB-8075/2024]

the charge-sheet. As per the FIR, the incident was witnessed by Aman, an eye-witness. Therefore, in view of the seriousness of the matter, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail prior to recording of the statement of injured Suresh Kumar and eye-witness Aman.

¶31

In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on record in respect of the petitioners, the allegations leveled against the petitioners, I am of the considered view that looking to the nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role attributed to the petitioners and the case set up against petitioners in its entirety, they are not found entitled to be released on bail.

¶32

As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and hence, the instant Bail Applications stand dismissed as being devoid of merit.

¶33

However, the trial court is directed to record the statement of injured Suresh Kumar and eye-witness Aman on priority basis.

¶34

Anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only.

¶35

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶36

41-42/praveen/-

Madan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madan Singh 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

Koushala Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratap Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Prahalad Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Ghisi Bai and Ors. Vs Ram Chandra and Ors.