Dismissed

Surendra S/O Soneram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2024CRLMB/5414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur dismissed a bail application filed by Surendra accused of causing injury to Harpal @ Banti under IPC Sections 143, 307, and 504. The court rejected the plea of false implication and reliance on co-accused bail, noting strong witness testimony and the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

What did the court decide?

Bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

Surendra S/O Soneram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34846]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5414/2024

¶4

Surendra S/o Soneram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Janakpur Gangoli, Police Station Basaidang, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Gurjar, PP Mr. Chandra Kant Chauhan, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

16/08/2024

¶13

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.80/2023, registered at Police Station Basaidang, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 307 and 504 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is alleged that the petitioner and the other co-accused Bhuri has opened fire at injured Harpal @ Banti. It is also contended that co-accused Bhuri had already been enlarged on bail by the trial Court and the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of the other co-accused Bhuri. It is also argued that no recovery of any weapon was effected from the accused-petitioner-Surendra. The FSL report is still pending, the medical report is concocted and there may be

[2024:RJ-JP:34846]

[CRLMB-5414/2024]

(2 of 3)

chances of concoction in the medical report. The injuries sustained to the injured Harpal @ Banti is not dangerous to life. There is no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner is in custody since 06.03.2024, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application and it is argued that the petitioner opened fire at injured Harpal @ Banti, resulting into injury at his eyes. It is also argued that eye-witnesses Aidel Singh, Ajit Singh, Munshi, Ramniwas and Banti in their statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have categorically stated that the accused-petitioner opened fire at injured Harpal @ Banti. It is also contended that the petitioner was operated and pallets were recovered and sent to FSL. The FSL report is still pending. It is also contended that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents and his antecedents has been recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order dated 30.04.2024, therefore considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and his criminal antecedents, the bail application of the accused-petitioner is entitled to be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the charge-sheet.

¶21

The specific allegations of causing injury to injured Harpal @ Banti is levelled against the present petitioner. It is alleged against the petitioner that he opened fire at injured resulting into eye injuries to the injured Harpal @ Banti. The other eye-witnesses namely, Aidel Singh, Ajit Singh, Munshi, Ramniwas and Banti in their statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has also stated that the petitioner opened fire at injured Harpal @ Banti.

¶22

[CRLMB-5414/2024]

¶23

[2024:RJ-JP:34846] (3 of 3)

¶24

Considering the statement of the witnesses and allegations levelled against the petitioner and also taking note that the petitioner is having criminal antecedents. Therefore, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner stands dismissed.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-19

Surendra S/O Soneram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra S/O Soneram 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

Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, Vs Jasvir Singh S/O Shri Prabha Singh

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

Hiralal S/O Nandaram Vs State of Rajajsthan

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Omwati W/O Bachchu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan