Dismissed

Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/O Shri Aladin v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Jul 2024CRLMB/8169/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a bail application filed by the petitioner accused in a murder case involving injuries. The court noted substantial evidence from eye-witnesses and the post-mortem report indicating multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by the accused, leaving no room for doubt about the gravity of the charges. Consequently, the application was not deemed just and proper to allow.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/O Shri Aladin Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:31119]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8169/2024 Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/o Shri Aladin, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Mundiyakheda, P.S. Sadar, District Alwar.

¶4

(At present confined in Central Jail Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. O.P. Solanki, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sher Singh Mehla, PP Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Advocate (for the complainant)

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

24/07/2024

¶13

This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner against the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, District Alwar under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.592/2023, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 341 and 302 of IPC by which the bail application of the accused-petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case,

[2024:RJ-JP:31119]

[CRLMB-8169/2024]

(2 of 4)

general allegations of causing injuries to the deceased have been levelled against the present accused-petitioner-Asu. Learned counsel also submitted that the charge-sheet has been submitted against the present accused-petitioner-Asu, Ishe Khan and Vakila for the offences under Sections 302, 323, 324, 341, 34, 147 and 149 of IPC and the trial has also commenced.

¶19

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner also submitted that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 10.08.2023 and since then, he is behind the bars. Learned counsel further submitted that the co-accused Vakila has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 06.06.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1558/2024 and the case of the present accused-petitioner is not distinguishable from the coaccused.

¶20

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner also contended that the statements of the injured eye-witnesses namely Arbaz, Amina and Umar Khan recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are contradictory. Learned counsel further contended that in the supplementary charge-sheet, it has been observed that the deceased-Shareef Khan was a heart patient, no fatal injuries have been found to be caused on his body and the cause of his death is a heart attack. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner argued that the charge-sheet has already been filed and the trial will take long time to conclude and, therefore, the accused-petitioner be granted benefit of bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed this bail application and

[2024:RJ-JP:31119]

[CRLMB-8169/2024]

(3 of 4)

submitted that the injured eye-witnesses namely Arbaaz Khan, Ameena and Umer Khan, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., have specifically stated that the present accused-petitioner and the other co-accused Ishe Khan caused injuries to the deceased-Shareef Khan by iron rod and 'lathis'.

¶26

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that as per post-mortem report of the deceased-Shareef Khan, as many as seven injuries have been found on his forehead, abdomen, chest and other body parts and all the injuries have been found to be ante mortem. Therefore, the accused-petitioner may not be granted benefit of bail.

¶27

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

¶28

In the FIR, allegations of causing injuries have been attributed to the present accused-petitioner-Asu and the other coaccused namely Ishe Khan and Vakila. In the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the injured eye-witnesses namely Arbaaz Khan stated that the present accused-petitioner inflicted injuries to the deceased; Ameena stated that the present accusedpetitioner inflicted injuries on the back of the deceased using a 'lathi' and Umer Khan, who is son of the deceased, has stated that the present accused-petitioner inflicted 'lathi' blows on the deceased.

¶29

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court does not deem it just and proper to allow the bail application filed by the petitioner.

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:31119]

[CRLMB-8169/2024]

Consequently, this bail application filed under Section 439

¶34

Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶35

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶36

AARZOO ARORA /06

Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/O Shri Aladin v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aas Mohammed @ Asu S/O Shri Aladin 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

Samay Singh Meena S/O Kanaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramdhan Gurjar S/O Shravan Lal Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dheeraj Singh @ Karua S/O Shri Gyan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Saleem Mohammed S/O Shri Akbar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemsingh S/O Mukhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Asfak S/O Suleman Vs State of Rajasthan