Allowed

Hemendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jodhpur allowed bail for two petitioners arrested in connection with murder and rioting offences. Finding no specific role assigned to them in the victim's death and no apprehension of witness tampering, the Court ordered their release on personal and surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

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

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11478]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8718/2023

¶4

Rahul S/o Ramesh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ramgarh Phala Kharod P.S. Dovda Dist. Dungarpur (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Sagwara Dist. Dungarpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 830/2023 Hemendra S/o Sh. Kantilal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ramgarh Fala Kharod P.S. Dowara Dist. Dungarpur Raj. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Dungarpur)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha Mr. Gyan Jyoti For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶16

Order

¶17

07/03/2024

¶18

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.216/2022, registered at Police Station Dowda, District Dungarpur, for the offences punishable under Sections 148/147, 341, 323, 365 and 302/149 IPC.

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner have been falsely implicated in the present case.

[2024:RJ-JD:11478]

[CRLMB-8718/2023]

(2 of 3)

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the eye witness-complainant- Naresh recorded before the competent criminal court as PW.1, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no allegations have been levelled against the present petitioners of beating the deceased with ‘ Lathis ’.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the eye witness-complainant- Naresh, during his Court statements, has not assigned any specific role to the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime.

¶26

Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the blunt weapon which were allegedly used in commission of the alleged crime have also been recovered from the co-accused persons namely Kishore and Mohan. It was contended that the petitioners are in judicial custody since 15.08.2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶27

Per Contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioners had played an active role in the alleged incident, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the accusations levelled against the present petitioner, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

¶28

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, Injury Report and the statements of the eye witness-complainantNaresh as PW.1, this Court prima facie finds that that the eye witness-complainant- Naresh, during his Court statements, has not assigned any specific role to the petitioners in the commission

[2024:RJ-JD:11478]

[CRLMB-8718/2023]

(3 of 3)

of the alleged crime; the specific allegation of beating the deceased with lathis and pipes have been levelled against the coaccused persons namely Kishore and Mohan.

¶33

This Court also prima facie finds that blunt weapon which was allegedly used in commission of the alleged crime have also been recovered at the instance of the co-accused persons; the statements of the star witness of the case have already been recorded before the competent criminal court; no apprehension of the petitioners influencing the star witness of the case or tampering with the evidence have been raised against the present petitioners. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶34

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners Rahul S/o Ramesh & Hemendra S/o Sh. Kantilal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.216/2022, registered at Police Station Dowda, District Dungarpur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

1-2-himanshu/-

Hemendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemendra 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

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Bajiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Tejpal Hudda Vs State of Rajasthan

Ratan Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Praveen Kumar Mangal Vs State

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan