Allowed

Omprakash @ Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Aug 2024CRLMB/8497/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application allowed for applicant in custody, following precedent regarding co-accused in same FIR. Court held that involvement was limited to parking vehicle and trial would take time. Granted bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

What did the court decide?

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

Omprakash @ Pappu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:35386]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8497/2024

¶4

Omprakash @ Pappu Ram S/o Teja Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Pur, Police Station Sanchore, District Sanchore (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In Sub Jail, Sanchore)

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
	Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted
	by Mr. Praveen Vyas, for the
	complainant

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

27/08/2024

¶13

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.424/2023 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302/34, 120B, 212, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that similarly situated co-accused namely, Hanuman Ram (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5944/2024) and Mangi Lal @ Tatiya (in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5945/2024) have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 29.05.2024.

[2024:RJ-JD:35386]

[CRLMB-8497/2024]

(2 of 3)

Learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application but however, not in a position to distinguish the case of the applicant from that of Hanuman Ram and Mangi Lal @ Tatiya.

¶19

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

¶20

While allowing the bail application of co-accused - Hanuman Ram, this Court has observed thus:

¶21

“5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances

¶22

of the case and considering that simply because of seemingly small accommodation of allowing the vehicle to be parked at his place, it cannot be said that he was aware that the vehicle which was being parked was used in some offence and he was a part of the conspiracy of murdering the deceased (Laxman Dewasi).

¶23

6. The applicant is behind the bars for a period of one month and trial of the case is likely to take substantial time, thus, this Court deems it fit to grant bail to the accused-applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶24

7. Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Hanuman Ram S/o Lala Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.424/2023 registered at Police Station Sanchore, 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.”

¶25

Following the reasoning given in the case of Hanuman Ram, the present bail application is also allowed.

¶26

Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Omprakash @ Pappu Ram S/o Teja Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.424/2023 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore shall be released on bail; provided that he executes a personal bond in the sum of

[2024:RJ-JD:35386]

[CRLMB-8497/2024]

(3 of 3)

₹50,000/- and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation 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

118-Arvind/-

Omprakash @ Pappu Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omprakash @ Pappu Ram 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

Sagar Mal Dak Vs Surendra Jain

Mission Swasthya Sewa Samiti Vs the State of Rajasthan

L.N. Memorial Para Medical Institute Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohan Ram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikas @ Vikki Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan