Allowed

Anoop Kumar S/O Mordhwaj v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Aug 2024CRLMB/4845/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jaipur allowed the bail application of the accused-petitioner in a murder trial, finding insufficient direct evidence to prove his alleged role in supplying weapons or participating in the unlawful assembly.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to satisfy the trial Judge.

Anoop Kumar S/O Mordhwaj Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4845/2024

¶3

Anoop Kumar S/o Mordhwaj, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jaicholi, Police Station Uchchain, District Bharatpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA cum AAG with Mr. Yashvardhan S. Bhati Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

08/08/2024

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 218/2023 registered at Police Station Halaina, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 120-B of IPC.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he alongwith the other co-accused conspired and thereafter caused murder of deceased Kuldeep. It is also contended that main allegation of causing death of deceased Kuldeep and gunshot injuries to the Vijaypal are attributed to other co-accused namely Devendra, Lokendra, Pankaj, Rhaul and Robin. It is also contended that

¶14

[CRLMB-4845/2024]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

police after investigation opined that accused Anoop Kumar supplied weapons to the main co-accused Pankaj and Lokendra Singh @ Loki, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the fact that petitioner has supplied the said weapons to the main coaccused. Apart from the disclosure statement of co-accused Pankaj and Lokendra, there is no substantive evidence available on record, indicating involvement of present petitioner in the alleged crime. Learned counsel further submits that in the jail, petitioner and other co-accused have threatened the witnesses of this case. The accused petitioner is in custody since long and the trial of the case will take considerable time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposes the bail application. It is contended that in the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner it has been specifically mentioned that petitioner supplied weapons which was used in the crime. Petitioner has verified the place of supplying the said arms to the other accused during investigation. Learned counsel further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail then there may be chances of tampering with the evidence, therefore considering the gravity of the offence bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

¶18

Heard and perused the charge-sheet.

¶19

It is alleged against the petitioner that he supplied the firearm to the main accused Pankaj and Lokendra. To substantiate the evidence of this fact, apart from disclosure statement of the other co-accused, there is no direct incriminating evidence available on the record. It is an admitted fact that no recovery of weapon was

¶20

[CRLMB-4845/2024]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

effected from the petitioner, it is not alleged against the petitioner that he alongwith other co-accused had made unlawful assembly and attacked the deceased Kuldeep and Vijaypal and caused injuries to them, resulting into death of deceased Kuldeep.

¶23

Therefore, considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Anoop Kumar S/o Mordhwaj, in connection with FIR No. 218/2023 registered at Police Station Halaina, District Bharatpur shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶26

ashu /18

Anoop Kumar S/O Mordhwaj v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anoop Kumar S/O Mordhwaj 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

Ramji Lal Meena Vs State

Ramji Lal Meena Vs State

Rafiq @ Jantari Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokendra Singh @ Loki S/O Bhanwar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Aditya S/O Late Shri Kripal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmilal Bairwa S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan