Hon'ble Court allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to Kaluram in murder trial. Ruling based on co-accused bail order, noting inconclusive FSL, doubt in FIR naming, and improbable call locations.
Applicant released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.
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:15370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 652/2024
Kaluram S/o Amraram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Devasiyo Ki Dhani, Ramasani, Bala, P.S. Sojat City, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail Sojat City Dist. Pali).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. D.S.Udawat |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha | ||
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. S.K.Bhati, PP Mr. Vijay Choudhary for the |
| complainant |
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
05/04/2024
[2024:RJ-JD:15370]
[CRLMB-652/2024]
(2 of 5)
"13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record, including the statements as flagged by learned counsel for the parties.
14. Without making observations about the manner in which the prosecution has proceeded and the charge-sheet has been filed, suffice it to highlight that neither in the FIR nor in the statement of wife of the deceased nor in the statement of the complainant and even in the statement of father of the deceased, names of the present applicants have been given, though names of other 8-10 persons have been given.
[2024:RJ-JD:15370]
[CRLMB-652/2024]
(3 of 5)
15. It is also to be noted that said Mahendra Kumar was injured around 2:30 pm on 31.08.2023 and he breathed his last on 03.09.2023 at 6:30 pm. In spite of the fact that the Investigating Officer had 72 hours time available with him, he has not tried to record statement of the deceased. It is rather surprising that if the deceased was able to apprise three persons about the incident and give the names of the persons who have inflicted injuries, why the Investigating Officer did not bother to record his statement.
16. Names of the present applicants have been referred by one Om Nath, who is not an eye witness to the incident. And curiously enough, he takes the names of the present applicants on the basis of the so called information given by the deceased (Mahendra Kumar).
17. This Court finds it difficult to believe that when the deceased Mahendra Kumar did not disclose the names of the applicants to his wife, brother and father, why would he name present applicants while narrating the incident to a third person.
18. The only evidence, which the prosecution has brought on record is the call location of the applicant No.1 Sharwan. It is pertinent to note that the incident occurred between 2:00 pm to 2:30 pm in village Sardarpura, whereas, as per the location analysis, the location of the applicant was in the village Sardarpura between 13:35 pm to 14:06 pm, whereafter his location is found in village Khariyaneev at 14:31 pm.
19. As informed by learned Public Prosecutor, village Kharyaneev is about 20 km away from the village Sardarpua. Hence, presence of applicant
(4 of 5)
[2024:RJ-JD:15370]
[CRLMB-652/2024]
Sharwan in village Sardarpura at the time of commission of offence is highly improbable.
20. Then comes the recovery of Lathi from the present applicant. Needless to observe that the recovery of purported weapon of offence has been made while the applicants were in police custody. Solely on the basis of such recovery, in primafacie opinion of this Court, the applicants cannot be kept behind the bars till indefinite period, when there is no other incriminating evidence.
21. So far as applicant No.2 Virendra @ Vakil is concerned, even his call location and call details record does not show his presence in the village Sardarpura. He has been indicted only on the basis of recovery of Lathi. 22. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case noted above, this Court is inclined to accept the bail application of both the applicants, who are behind bars since 09.09.2023/11.09.2023."
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-652/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:15370]
(DINESH MEHTA),J
22-akansha/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the applicant given the similarity of his case to that of co-accused already enlarged on bail.
Whether the recovery of an iron rod with inconclusive FSL reports and call location discrepancies justify denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sharwan and Virendra Bail ApplicationRelied on¶14
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.16244/2023
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaluram S/o Amraram
State Of Rajasthan
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DINESH MEHTA
Parties & counsel
