In this bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the petitioner's plea for regular bail. The court held that despite alleged false implication and contradictions in witness statements, the petitioner's long period of absconding and the gravity of the offences precluded granting bail at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JP:49945]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8840/2024
Nathu Lal S/o Ramkaran, R/o Kishna Patel Ki Dhani, Village Lasadia, Brahamanan, Police Station Kanota Jaipur East (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Meenakshi Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
04/12/2024
The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner - Nathu Lal S/o Ramkaran, in connection with F.I.R. No.746/2021, registered at Police Station Kanota, Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 147, 149, 323, 341, 307 & 302 I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he is behind the bars since 11.06.2024. It is also submitted that the other co-accused person, namely Kanhaiya Lal, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2024. Counsel further submits that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during trial. Looking to the overall
[2024:RJ-JP:49945]
[CRLMB-8840/2024]
(2 of 3)
facts & circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for regular bail in this matter.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the incident took place on 12.11.2021 and at the time of alleged incident, the petitioner had also tried to protect his identity. It is further submitted that keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, the Investigating Officer had filed a charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. and pursuant thereof standing warrant was issued against the petitioner and later on he was arrested on 11.06.2024. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that the statements of the prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the arrest of the petitioner and now the prosecution witnesses will have to get their statements recorded again after his arrest. The eye-witnesses as well as injured witnesses have made direct & clear allegations against the petitioner in the matter. Looking to the gravity of offence(s), the present bail application deserves to be dismissed.
Considered the overall allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the impugned order and the contentions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner.
It is clearly evident from the record that the incident took place on 12.11.2021 and the petitioner remained absconded from the date of alleged incident i.e. 12.11.2021 till his arrest i.e. on 11.06.2024. While the petitioner was absconding, the statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded and now the statements of the same witnesses will have to be recorded again
[2024:RJ-JP:49945] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8840/2024]
due to the arrest of the petitioner. It is also emanating that there are direct & clear allegations against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R. & statements of the injured persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thus, at this stage, scrutiny and analysis of the evidence(s) does not appear to be justified.
Looking to the overall facts & circumstances of the case and the submissions made at bar but without going into the merits of this case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of regular bail to the accused-petitioner.
Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section
483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J
SAHIL SONI /46
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to regular bail given his absconding for years and the gravity of the offences.
Whether the contradictions in prosecution witness statements justify granting bail despite direct allegations against the petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nathu Lal S/o Ramkaran
State Of Rajasthan
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
