Allowed

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/O Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Jul 2024CRLMB/5098/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application in a murder-adjacent FIR case involving assault and house trespass. The court noted conflicting witness versions between the F.I.R. and a Section 161 statement, found the possibility of fabricated facts could not be ruled out, and enlarged the petitioner on bail without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each.

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/O… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:32030]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5098/2024

¶4

Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Majra Ahir, Police Station Harsora, Tehsil Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror. (Accused In Sub Jail Behror).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari For State : Mr. Chandra Gupt Chopra, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

29/07/2024

¶13

Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No.228/2023 registered with the Police Station Harsora, District Kotputli Behror for offence under Sections 341, 323, 452, 379 & 34 of IPC.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report was lodged by the son of the deceased on the very same day of the incident, stating therein that the accused-petitioner alongwith Manish S/o Suresh, Suresh S/o Babulal and Alka wife of Suresh with deadly weapons in their hands, came to his house and made an attack on him and his family members, including the deceased, but after ten days of the incident, the complainantparty has changed their version about the manner in which the

[2024:RJ-JP:32030]

[CRLMB-5098/2024]

(2 of 3)

incident took place. The other son of the deceased namely; Rahul has narrated a different story in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 13.12.2023. Counsel further submits that the cause of death is the head injury sustained by the deceased and as per the averments of the F.I.R., there is no specific overt act assigned to the petitioner and it is not disclosed who caused the fatal injury to the deceased. It is further submitted that the Police has completed the investigation and has submitted the charge-sheet and at this stage, there are two kinds of versions of the prosecution witnesses. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 08.12.2023 and the trial will take its own time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Counsel for the complainant submits that the accused-petitioner has played an active role in the incident and the Police after conclusion of the investigation has submitted charge-sheet with the observations that on the basis of evidence collected by the investigation agency, the allegations against the accusedpetitioner are found to be proved.

¶20

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and also perused the challan papers.

¶21

The version put forth in the F.I.R., by one of the son of the deceased is quite different from the version of the other son of the

[CRLMB-5098/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:32030]

(3 of 3)

deceased disclosed during his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.12.2023. At this stage it cannot be said that which of the version is correct and therefore, possibility of false and fabricated facts cannot be ruled out.

¶26

Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the observations made above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶27

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

ARTI SHARMA /32

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/O Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Sureshchand Sharma, Adopted S/O Ashok Kumar Sharma 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

Chhatarpal S/O Shri Kishansingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deshraj S/O Ramjilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Bhambhani S/O Kanhaiya Pritam Bhambhani Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Kumar Meena @ Manoj Meena S/O Shri Medaram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Happaram Vishnoi S/O Chhogaram Vs Central Narcotics Bureau

Hanif @ Kada S/O Japsingh Vs State of Rajasthan