Allowed

Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Mar 2024CRLMB/963/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four accused in an explosion case sought bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the applications based on a compromise deed and the victim's consent, noting no specific role was attributed to the petitioners and the principal accused was named.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Rajendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:11876]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 1318/2024

¶4

Shankar S/o Shri Kacharu, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Dhanela Post Gole P.s Aspur District Dungarpur (Rajasthan) (Presently Lodged In District Jail Dungarpur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 957/2024 Nathu Lal S/o Ganga Ji, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ghodi Amli Dev Somnath Police Thana Dovda District Dungarpur. (At Present Lodged In District Jail Dungarpur)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 960/2024 Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kundali Nai Basti, P.s. Jhallara, District Salumbar. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Dungarpur)

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

Punji Lal S/o Heera La, R/o Vasipal Fala Ghata, P.s. Dowda, District Dungarpur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 963/2024 Rajendra Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nichla Guda, Post Vadavali, P.s. Semari, District Salumbar. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Dungarpur.)

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:11876]

[CRLMB-1318/2024]

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶28

Punji Lal S/o Heera La, R/o Vasipal Fala Ghata, P.s. Dowda, District Dungarpur.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Popat Lal Ahari
	Mr. Shambhoo Singh
	Mr Mahendra Singh Jhala
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
	Mr. Punjilal Katara

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶32

Order

¶33

12/03/2024

¶34

Lawyers are abstaining from appearing before the Court.

¶35

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶36

S.No.	Particulars of	the Case
1.	FIR Number	307/2023
2.	Concerned Police Station	Dowara
3.	District	Dungarpur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	Sections 436, 307 & 447 of IPC and Sections 3 & 5(A) of the Explosive Substance Act
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date ofpassingof impugned order	19.01.2024

¶37

It is contended on behalf of the relatives of the accusedpetitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against the accused and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:11876]

[CRLMB-1318/2024]

work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶42

Contrary to the submissions of parties present, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶43

I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. A bare perusal of the FIR revealing that the key person behind exploding the house of the victim Punjilal is accused Amril Lal @ Amra. No specific role or over act has been attributed to the present petitioners. A compromise deed is placed before this Court to this effect that the victim Punjilal has entered into compromise with the petitioners Shankar, Natu Lal, Ranjeet Singh and Rajendra Singh. The victim Punjilal is present-in-person before this Court. While conferring with him as to why he entered into compromise with the present petitioners, he replied that in fact he was not knowing all the names of the assailants and the names of present petitioners were given by the villagers but now he is convinced that the petitioners were not involved in this matter, therefore, for the purpose of permanent burial of dispute and to resolve the controversy he does not wish to continue the prosecution against the present petitioners Shankar, Nathu Lal, Rajendra Singh and Ranjeet Singh. He urges for release of the above named petitioners. After going through the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the compromise deed and more particularly the fact that

(4 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:11876]

[CRLMB-1318/2024]

principally accused Amrit Lal @ Amra has been named as an accused who made explosion of the house of the victim, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

¶48

Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to them to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶49

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶50

32-Samvedana/-

Rajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Singh 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

Laxman Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Shivraj Vs U.O.I.

Nemaram Vs Union of India

Shanti Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nathu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan