This second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case was dismissed. The High Court held that the petitioner confessed to the crime and ornaments were recovered from him, negating the bail claim despite the unexplained FIR delay and custody duration.
Petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial shall be expedited.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:23222]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 601/2024
Binja Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Murkasani, Ps Borunda, Dist. Jodhpur. (Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG Mr. Pallav Sharma, AAAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG
Order
22/05/2024
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.217/2021 Police Station Borunda, Dist. Jodhpur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 394 & 302 of IPC. The first bail application was dismissed on 01.09.2022 with liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statement of witnesses Swaroop Ram and Jagdish.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the witnesses Swaroop Ram and Jagdish have been examined before the trial court as PW-7 & PW-8 respectively. Counsel further submits that F.I.R. in this case has been lodged after a considerable delay and this delay has not at all been explained by the complainant. The petitioner is in the judicial custody for more than two years and
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-601/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:23222]
the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.
According to the statements of Swaroop Ram (PW-7) and Jagdish (PW-8), it is clear that the present petitioner has confessed his crime before the villagers and it is an admitted fact that the ornaments of deceased were also recovered from the possession of present petitioner. In these circumstances, no case for grant of second bail is made out against the petitioner.
Hence, the second bail application is hereby dismissed, however, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J
114-GKaviya/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be granted second bail in a murder case.
Whether the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is a valid ground for bail.
Whether the recovery of ornaments and confession negate the necessity of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Binja Ram
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
Manoj Kumar Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
