Allowed

Dinesh Solanki v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2024CRLMB/700/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed regular bail to two petitioners charged under IPC 307/34. The court found the assault resulted from a mutual scuffle with no evidence of premeditation. It held that conversion of an injury to grievous nature alone cannot justify keeping the accused incarcerated indefinitely.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:10531]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No. 700/2024

¶4

Dinesh Solanki S/o Ramchandra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Karolia Road, Jaitaran, PS Jaitaran, District Beawar (Earlier Dist Pali) (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Jaitaran)

¶5

Bhanwarlal S/o Ramchandra Ghanchi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Karolia Road, Jaitaran, PS Jaitaran, District Beawar (Earlier Dist Pali) (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Jaitaran)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

Rakesh S/o Girdharilal, R/o Jaitaran District Beawar (Raj)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, Public Prosecutor Ms. Kamini Rathore with Ms. Sonu Rathore for the complainant

¶12

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶13

Order

¶14

01/03/2024

¶15

The present second bail application has been filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 493/2023 registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District Beawar for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶16

The first bail application filed by the applicants was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.12.2023 in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 14789/2023.

[2024:RJ-JD:10531]

[CRLMB-700/2024]

(2 of 4)

Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the injuries that were suffered by the injured namely Sukhlal were received in a mutual scuffle between the applicants and the injured, which took place at present applicant’s field itself. Learned counsel submitted that the present applicants have reported about the incident to the police and a First Information Report No. 491/2023 dated 27.09.2023 was registered at 07:53 pm, whereas the cross FIR or the FIR in question has been registered after two days i.e. on 29.09.2023 being FIR No. 493/2023.

¶21

Learned counsel argued that it is clear from perusal of the record that not only the injured had received injuries, even the applicants have suffered the injuries, including injury on head. While emphasizing that the complainant himself was aggressor, Mr. Jain submitted that since the injury suffered by the complainant Sukhlal was later on found to be grievous in nature, the case has been registered for the offence under Section 307 IPC, though there was no evidence of any pre-meditated attempt or motive to murder the injured.

¶22

Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the nature of injuries, which has been inflicted upon the head of the injured namely Sukhlal, is enough to proceed against the applicants for the offence under Section 307 IPC. She submitted that the mere fact that the applicants have rushed to register FIR at earlier point of time, does not absolve them from the offences they have

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:10531]

[CRLMB-700/2024]

committed. She further submitted that looking to the grievous nature of the injuries, no indulgence be granted to the applicants.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the bail application.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the injury reports of the injured so also the applicant – Bhanwarlal.

¶29

On perusal of the over all factual matrix, this Court finds that a mutual scuffle took place between the parties on the field of the applicants; and in such free fight and in heat of moment, both the parties including the injured have suffered the injuries. One such injury was initially shown to be simple, but later on found to be grievous in nature, but the said fact alone cannot be a reason to keep the present applicants incarcerated for indefinite period.

¶30

In absence of any evidence of pre-meditated plan or intention to cause death, on the appraisal of material so far produced, it cannot be said with certitude that the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the present applicants. 10. It is to be noted that even the present applicants have suffered injuries on their head. That apart, having regard to the nature of injury, which the injured Sukhlal has suffered, it cannot believed that he could inflict the injuries that has been caused to the applicants. Therefore, the injuries suffered by the applicants appears to have been caused prior to the grievous injury which the injured has suffered. In other words, the possibility that the injured Sukhlal was aggressor and initiated the scuffle cannot be ruled out. The infliction of injuries by the applicants can well fall within the scope of 'private defence'.

[2024:RJ-JD:10531]

[CRLMB-700/2024]

(4 of 4)

Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicants who are behind the bars since 30.10.2023, cannot be kept behind bars any further, as the trail of the case is likely to take substantial time. 12. Consequently, the second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicants namely (1) Dinesh Solanki S/o Sh. Ramchandra; and (2) Bhanwarlal S/o Sh. Ramchandra arrested in connection with the FIR No. 493/2023 registered at Police Station Jaitaran, District Beawar shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶35

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

¶36

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.

¶37

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶38

13-Mak/-

Dinesh Solanki v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Solanki 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

Virendra Tank Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Suresh Kumar Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Bishnoi (Belt No. 315) Vs State of Rajasthan

Padma Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ali Hussain @ Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita @ Chunni Vs State of Rajasthan