Allowed

Saurabh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2024CRLMB/5234/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application by two accused in an assault case where the victim suffered serious injuries. The investigating officer's affidavit indicated the victim's condition may have resulted from his vehicle colliding with a tree rather than the alleged assault. Considering trial delay, bail granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each before the trial court.

Saurabh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26548]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5234/2024

¶4

Saurabh S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Purabsar P.s. Pallu Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar).

¶5

Manoj Kumar S/o Devi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Purabsar P.s. Pallu Dist. Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Nohar).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ramawatar Singh Mr. S.S. Gour
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Arun Kumar, PP Mr. Vinod Kumar Sihag
		Mr. Ishwar Singh, RPS, CO Nohar, District Hanumangarh

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶12

02/07/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance

¶14

of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are

¶15

tabulated herein below:

¶16

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	253/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Pallu
3.	District	Hanumangarh
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Under Sections 323, 341, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC
5.	Offences added, if any	Section 458 and 34 of the IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	22.03.2024

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:26548]

[CRLMB-5234/2024]

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Shri Vinod Kumar Sihag, learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and would contend that the petitioners are the person responsible for the indisposed condition of the victim.

¶22

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the challan papers as well as the case diary as made available to this Court by the Investigating Officer-Shri Ishwar, DSP, Police who is present-in-person and seriously conferred with him.

¶24

Though, there are allegations that the victim was assaulted by the accused petitioners and the other persons as a consequence of which he received several simple and grievous injuries, however, the affidavit furnished by Shri Ishwar, DSP, Police reflecting an altogether different story than to what has been incorporated in the initial police report and the statement of the prosecution witnesses. A glimpse over the charge-sheet and a perusal of the affidavit revealing that though there was a clash in between the petitioner and

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:26548]

[CRLMB-5234/2024]

the victim party, but in fact, the vehicle of the victim collided with a tree situated nearby the road and as a consequence of which the victim received several injuries and even till date, he is suffering from trauma. He is not in a position to speak out as to what had happened with him. Shri Ishwar, DSP, Police candidly admits that he visited the place of the victim on three occasions and he was found lying in bed in a supine condition at his home. His general condition was better but he was not able to utter words.

¶29

Admittedly, it was an unfortunate incident and there is no dispute that the victim has received serious injuries, however positively and concretely, it cannot be said that the present condition of the victim was a necessary and concomitant outcome of the assault made by the petitioners who are languishing in jail. The charge-sheet and the affidavit furnished by the Investigating Officer somehow absolving the petitioners from the charges of serious injuries to the victim.

¶30

In these circumstances as well as considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, this Court feels that still permitting the petitioners to be languished in jail would not be in the interest of justice and, therefore, in the fact situation of the case, it is deemed appropriate to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners.

¶31

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the

¶32

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-5234/2024]

¶33

[2024:RJ-JD:26548]

¶34

sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶35

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶36

35-divya/-

Saurabh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh 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

Smt. Khushbu Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmatha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem a Devidayal and Anr. Vs State

Shanti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Vs Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Raju Singh Vs State of Rajasthan