Allowed

Pawan Bagda S/O Shri Prahlad Bagda v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Aug 2024CRLMB/8871/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the fourth bail application of the petitioner accused in a murder riyal case. Relying on the F.S.L. report, witness inconsistencies, and the lengthy custody without concluding trial, the Court held it appropriate to release the accused on bail subject to bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each with the trial court.

Pawan Bagda S/O Shri Prahlad Bagda Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34950]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 8871/2024 Pawan Bagda S/o Shri Prahlad Bagda, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Badawali Dhani, Mansharampura, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur. (Currently Confined In Judicial Custody At Central Jail Jaipur).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Udit Purohit with
	Mr. Hemant Sant &
	Mr. Suraj Bhan Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Shri Ram Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶10

Order

¶11

20/08/2024

¶12

The instant 4^th bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner in the matter arising out of F.I.R. No. 1052/2021 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur West for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 147, 148, 302/149 & 120B I.P.C.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case, he has nothing to do with the alleged offence(s) and he is behind the bars since 07.12.2021. The other co-accused persons, namely Rahul Sharma, Deepanshu Kumawat & Deepak Yadav, have already been granted bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel further submits that the statements of only eight prosecution witnesses out of 26 prosecution witnesses, have been recorded in the matter. It is

[2024:RJ-JP:34950]

[CRLMB-8871/2024]

(2 of 3)

further submitted that as per the F.S.L. report, no blood was found on the iron pipe seized at the instance of the petitioner, and it has also not been found proved that the alleged injury has been caused by the iron pipe recovered at the instance of the petitioner. There are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses & ' Parcha-bayaan ' of the deceased. Counsel submits that the allegation of head injury has only been levelled against the accused person, namely Hemraj. The petitioner has remained in judicial custody for a period of more than two years & seven months, therefore, his further incarceration would not serve any fruitful purpose. Trial of the case is likely to take a long time to conclude. He is ready and willing to furnish his bail bonds. Therefore, the bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.07.2023. At present, there is no change in the circumstances, which warrants release of the accused-petitioner on regular bail.

¶19

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

¶20

It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 07.12.2021. The statements of total eight prosecution witnesses have been recorded, out of 26 witnesses till today. As per the ' Parcha-bayaan ', there is no allegation against the petitioner of injury on any vital part(s) of the body of the

[CRLMB-8871/2024]

[2024:RJ-JP:34950]

(3 of 3)

deceased. As per the submission of learned cousnel for the petitioner, there are inconsistencies, contradications & material improvements in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, consideration & analysis of evidence(s) at this stage, is not appropriate and permissible. The bail applications of three accused persons, have already been allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶25

Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions put forth, overall facts & circumstances of the case, custodial period of the accused-petitioner, F.S.L. Report and evidence(s) produced during trial but without commenting upon detailed merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Consequently, the 4^th bail application is allowed . Accusedpetitioner namely Pawan Bagda S/o Shri Prahlad Bagda, shall be released on bail, if he is not required in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Fifty Thousand) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty-five Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any other court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so.

¶27

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶28

SAHIL SONI /17

Pawan Bagda S/O Shri Prahlad Bagda v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Bagda S/O Shri Prahlad Bagda 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

Rajesh Kumar S/O Ramgiri Vs State of Rajasthan

Suriaya Durrany Widow of Late Dr. Khurram Shah Durrany Daughter of Shri Mumtaz Alam, Vs Nishant Alam S/O Shri Mumtaz Alam

Raju Nath S/O Shri Ramkuwar Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Pratap and Another Vs Puran and Others

Mst. Aawda W/O Ahsaan Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Arjun Lal S/O Shri Lachhuram Rewad Vs State of Rajasthan