Allowed

Hansraj S/O Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2024CRLMB/551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the petitioners. Despite the serious charge of murder, the court granted bail considering the petitioner was confined for over two years, had filed a counter FIR as a victim with multiple injuries, and the likelihood of a long trial.

What did the court decide?

The accused-petitioner was enlarged on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Hansraj S/O Nand Kishore Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 551/2024

¶4

Hansraj S/o Nand Kishore, Aged About 39 Years, R/o House Number L.h. 49, Chanbal Colony, Sakatpura, Police Station Kunhadi Kota. (At Present Confined At District Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Munindra singh
	Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam
	Mr. Abhimanyu Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Mehla

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

19/01/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing the 3^rd bail application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. Hence, the instant bail application. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	36/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Kunhadi
3.	District	Kota City
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 302, 341 & 323 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	Section 324 of the IPC
6.	Date of passing of impugned order	11.05.2022

[CRLMB-551/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

(2 of 6)

The first and second bail applications of the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide orders dated 21.07.2022 and 31/07.2023 with liberty to renew the prayer after change of any circumstance.

¶19

Brief the facts for disposal of the instant bail application would be that the petitioner came to be arrested in this case on 05.02.2022 for the accusation of committing an offence of murder of one Bhuvnesh @ Bhanu. A report to this effect came to be lodged by one Ganesh Lal, who happens to be the father of the deceased upon which, an FIR No. 36/2022 got registered at the Police Station Kunhadi, Kota City. It was alleged in the FIR that on 25.01.2022 at around 10:00 a.m. the deceased and his friend Sintu Baccha left the home for their job and when reached around the Thermal Circle, due to previous animosity the petitioner Hansraj Gurjar restrained their way and stabbed the deceased as a consequence of which, during treatment in the MBS Hospital, Bhuvnesh succumbed to death.

¶20

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that the incident took place due to previous animosity between the petitioner and the deceased; he is behind the bars for more than two years; cross case has also been registered for the same incident, therefore, he may also be enlarged on bail.

¶21

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.

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

[CRLMB-551/2024]

(3 of 6)

Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶26

Perusal of the material made available to the Court more particularly, the postmortem report as well as the Panchnama laash revealing that a stab wound measuring 4 X2.5 cm on left side of chest and two fractures were found on the ribs on the body of the deceased. Prima facie, it is revealing that the deceased had sustained a single injury which proved fatal.

¶27

At this stage when the petitioner is behind the bars for last more than two years, this fact cannot be ignored that the relations between the petitioner and the deceased were inimical. It would be worthwhile to mention here the facts of another FIR No.38/2022 registered at the same police station mentioning a conflict manner of incident. The said FIR got lodged by none other than the petitioner Hansraj while he was admitted in emergency ward at the MBS Hospital, Kota. In the FIR No.38/2022, the petitioner had alleged that he is a welder by profession and on 25.01.2022 at around 9:00-9:30 a.m. he was going to have a cup of tea at the shop of one Jagdish and when he reached near the Thermal Circle, due to previous animosity, the deceased Bhuvnesh @ Bhanu along with Aslam and one other person stopped him. They were having knifes in their hands. They attempted to kill the petitioner upon which he rushed to tea shop of Jagdish but both Bhuvnesh and his friends came there and all of them surrounded him and inflicted several knife injuries to him. The report was taken by Shri Mohan Lal, Sub-Inspector, who mentioned in the footnote of the report that the petitioner was having multiple

(4 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

[CRLMB-551/2024]

injuries viz., shoulder, elbow, chest, head, thigh gluteal region etc. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner received around 15 simple and grievous injuries, out of which injury No.4 was opined to be dangerous to life and all the injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon.

¶32

In the case lodged at the behest of the petitioner Hansraj, after investigation, accused Raghvendra Singh @ Chintu Baccha was chargesheeted for offence under Section 307 of the IPC along with other offences of the IPC as well as under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Since the other accused of this case, Bhuvnesh Bhanu @ died, therefore, proceeding against him were dropped. Another accused named Rohit Valmiki, who was juvenile at the time of incident, chargesheeted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Present one is the case where two contrary versions of same incident has been reported by both the parties. Unfortunately, the petitioner is behind the bars in a case lodged against him because the victim of that case Bhuvnesh @ Bhanu died due to the injuries allegedly inflicted by the petitioner. This cannot be lost sight to consider that the deceased received only one stab injury and on the other hand, the petitioner received around 15 injuries including life endangering ones.

¶33

As mentioned above, two different versions have been reported regarding the same incident, of-course with different narration but one thing is common therein that police has examined an independent witness Jagdish, who was running a tea stall near the crime scene. The police recorded the statement of Jagdish under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. since he is an

(5 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

[CRLMB-551/2024]

independent witness having no attachment or grudge with any of the party, therefore, at this stage of hearing a bail plea under Section 439 Cr.P.C. that too, after two years of his confinement in jail, therefore, due weightage must be given to the statement of this witness.

¶38

Perusal of the statement of Jagdish recorded on 26.01.2022 by Shri Ganga Sahay Sharma, Investigating Officer manifesting it that on the fateful day of the incident he was at his tea stall and he saw that three boys were having knifes in their hands and were thrashing the petitioner Hansraj upon which the petitioner somehow manage to rush towards his tea stall during that course, he fell down thereafter was clobbered by the assailants.

¶39

At the stage of hearing a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pending trial, any observation of a higher Court regarding credibility of the statement and quality of evidence may hamper or influence the trial Judge for making perfect appreciation of evidence brought before him, therefore, I deem it appropriate to abstain from giving any opinion on the evidence brought before this Court, however, taking into account and in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly the fact that the petitioner was also a victim of FIR No.38/2022 and in the said incident he received multiple injuries and behind the bars since two years. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

(6 of 6)

[2024:RJ-JP:5397]

[CRLMB-551/2024]

It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that hes may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him. Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.

¶44

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title 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.

¶45

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶46

Mamta /72

Hansraj S/O Nand Kishore v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansraj S/O Nand Kishore 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

Badal Kumar Alias Madaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chagnaram @ Kalu Vs State of Rajasthan

Gautam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarfaraz Mohammad S/O Late Shri Ishaq Mohammad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sharwan Kumar S/O Shri Hanumanram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Alias Rodu S/O Shri Hanuman Sahai Sharma, Vs the State of Rajasthan