Allowed

Indra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMB/564/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to two female applicants under Section 439 Cr.P.C. charged with offences including murder and affray. The Court found that witnesses did not positively implicate them for the fatal injury caused by a third party, and deemed it just and proper to release them on bail pursuant to Section 437(2) Cr.P.C. enabling the attachment of joinder.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed; applicants to be released on bail by furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Indra Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6730]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 564/2024

¶4

Indra W/o Gopilal Rebari, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kishanpura, P.s. Parsoli, Teh. Begu, Dist Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Begu, Dist. Chittorgarh)

¶5

Ugma W/o Nathulal Rebari, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Kishanpura, P.s. Parsoli, Teh- Begu, Dist. Chittorgarh (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail Begu, Dist. Chittorgarh)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. PankajKumar Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi

¶11

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

08/02/2024

¶14

This application for bail has been filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.152/2023 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307, 302 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the scuffle which took place between the neighboring families caused injuries to Bhanwarlal and Mangilal. He pointed out that injuries sustained by Bhanwarlal are simple in nature while Mangilal succumbed to injuries inflicted upon him.

[2024:RJ-JD:6730]

[CRLMB-564/2024]

(2 of 3)

Taking the Court’s through the statements of Dhanalal and Bherulal, learned counsel submitted that allegation of giving stick blow on the head is on Bhabhutalal and as per injury report and post-mortem report of the deceased, said injury on occipital region, was responsible for Mangilal’s death.

¶19

He submitted that applicant No.1 is alleged to have caused injury by stick but without any indication about the part of the body. He added that none of the persons who have given statement have attributed any injury to the present applicants, due to which it can be said that the deceased had passed away.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that both the applicants are ladies and behind the bar since 16.10.2023 and prayed that they be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the statement of the injured and eye-witnesses clearly shows that Indra was having stick in her hand and she inflicted injuries to the deceased. He further submitted that even stick has been recovered from possession of the applicant and argued that the applicants are not entitled to be indulged on bail.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

¶23

Upon consideration of statements of injured and eye-witness, it transpires that two witnesses namely Dhanalal and Bherulal, stated that Indra had given stick blow to the deceased but without specifying the part of the body where the blow was given. On perusal of injury report and post-mortem report of the deceased

[2024:RJ-JD:6730]

[CRLMB-564/2024]

(3 of 3)

(Mangilal), this Court finds that there is only one head injury and the same is reported to be reason of the death of the deceased and the said injury has been assigned to one Bhabhutaram. So far as other injured Bherulal, Sugna etc are concerned, all of them suffered simple injuries.

¶28

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the mandate of Section 437(2) of Cr.P.C., because both the applicants are females, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶29

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicants (1) Indra W/o Gopilal Rebari & (2) Ugma W/o Nathulal Rebari arrested in connection with FIR No.152/2023 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶30

Applicants shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶32

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶33

172-raksha/-

Indra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indra 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

Ram Kumar Bhadhu Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nandkishore Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Anuradha Vyas Vs Shri Dr. K.B. Pandya

Amit Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs Punjab National Bank

Radheyshyam Vs State of Rajasthan