Allowed

Chandu Luhar @ Chandiya v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2024CRLMB/80/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for accused persons in an FIR alleging murder. The court relied on the hostility of the star witness and parity with co-accused already granted bail, subject to personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accusals enlarged on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Chandu Luhar @ Chandiya Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:6515]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 80/2024

¶4

Chandu Luhar @ Chandiya S/o Satya Narain Luhar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Intmariya, Shahpura P.S., At Present Residing As Tenant At House No. B/116, RK Colony, Nearby Shiv Mandir, Subhash Nagar P.S., Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara. (Confined In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Machhendra S/o Laxman Kumawat, R/o E/178, RK Colony, Subhash Nagar P.S., Bhilwara, Dist. Bhilwara.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No.1622/2024

¶12

Deepak S/o Shyam Singh, aged About 24 Years, resident of Badnor, District Bhilwara. At present residing at Jain Mandir Lane, Rajput Colony, Subhash Nagar Police Station, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Haniya Mr. Ashok Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order

¶19

08/02/2024

¶20

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:6515]

[CRLMB-80/2024]

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	177/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Subhash Nagar
3.	District	Bhilwara
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B. CRLMB Application No.80/2024)	02.11.2023
7.	Date of passing of impugned order (S.B. CRL Misc. II^ndBail Application No.1622/2024)	19.01.2024

¶25

It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. The co-accused persons namely Deepak Kumar Cheepa @ Vansh S/o Mahveer Prasad and Kamlesh @ Bajrangi @ D.J.AVI S/o Jagdish have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application Nos.1021/2024 & 1030/2024.

¶26

Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶27

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The star

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:6515]

[CRLMB-80/2024]

witness of the case has turned hostile and does not support the story set out in the charge-sheet. It is not disputed that the similarly situated co-accused persons namely Deepak Kumar Cheeppa and Kamlesh have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the present petitioners, the quality of evidence and the nature of accusation are not distinguishable. Thus, on the ground of parity and on the ground that the trial would still take a long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶32

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause titles shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶33

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶34

Ashtutosh-15 & C-1

Chandu Luhar @ Chandiya v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandu Luhar @ Chandiya 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

Tahir Malavat Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Junjaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Harshit Khatri Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Vs State of Rajasthan