Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2024CRLMB/7995/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted bail to the accused under CrPC 439, holding him similarly situated to a co-accused. Despite allegations of conspiracy and hiring a vehicle, the lack of active role in the murder and pending trial justified release.

What did the court decide?

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

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:26513]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7995/2024

¶4

Suresh Kumar S/o Sh Mohan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Veermoniya Ki Dhani, Chainpura, Police Station Dhorimanna, Dist. Barmer Raj. (Presently Lodged In Sub Jail, Sanchore)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. PradeepShah
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. S.K.Bhati, Public Prosecutor
		Mr. O P Mehta through VC and
		Mr. Falgun Buch for the complainant

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

02/07/2024

¶13

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.424/2023, registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalor for the offences under sections 341, 302 read with 34, 120-B and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) and section 7/27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Mr. Shah, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that similarly situated co-accused Mangi Lal @ Tatiya has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 29.05.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5945/2024 and the case of the present applicant is not different.

[2024:RJ-JD:26513]

[CRLMB-7995/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned Public Prosecutor was not in a position to distinguish the facts of the present case vis-a-vis the facts involved in the case of co-accused Mangi Lal.

¶19

Mr. O P Mehta, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application and submitted that as per the remand report, the present applicant was a part of hatching conspiracy and he has hired a vehicle by paying a sum of Rs.3,000/- to facilitate fleeing of the principal accused.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶21

While enlarging the co-accused (Mangi Lal), this Court has observed thus:-

¶22

“5. The allegation against the applicant is that he used his vehicle for helping the main accused person to flee. Even if it is taken that the applicant was siting in such vehicle, then also a case under section 212 of the Indian Penal Code can be said to be made out against him. It is to be noted that the similarly situated co-accused persons Mahesh and Usman, who had allegedly harboured the principle accused, have been enlarged on bail by this Court. The applicant cannot be kept incarcerated for indefinite period, as trial of the case is likely to take substantial time, hence, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the accused-applicant on bail.”

¶23

So far as the contention raised by Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the complainant in relation to observation made in remand report that the applicant was a part of hatching conspiracy and has paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to hire a taxi/car is concerned, the same cannot substantially change the applicant's case from that of

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:26513]

[CRLMB-7995/2024]

co-accused (Mangi Lal), particularly when there is no active role or act by the present applicant in the offence of murder.

¶28

Following the reasoning given in the case of co-accused Mangi Lal (supra) and considering that the applicant is behind the bars since 12.04.2024 and the charge-sheet has not been filed and the trial of the case shall take substantial time, the bail application of the present applicant is allowed.

¶29

Consequently, the bail application filed under section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant - Suresh Kumar S/o Sh Mohan Lal arrested in connection with FIR No.424/2023, registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalor shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶30

Applicant 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

133-akansha/-

Suresh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Kritika Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwara Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vision for Health Welfare and Special Needs Vishwas Society Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Amba Medical Store Vs Appellant Authority and Joint Secretary

Smt Lila Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Tiloka Ram Vs State of Rajasthan