The High Court dismissed the bail application of the petitioner accused in an FIR registered for assault and murder. The court found that the petitioner was directly attributed with the deadly assault causing death, and the matter required trial on evidence rather than release on bail.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:32661]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14082/2024
Mausam S/o Mamura, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kaimasa, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aatish Jain Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anupam Sharma Mr. Vafik Choudhary Ms. Arti Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
18/08/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:32661]
[CRLMB-14082/2024]
(2 of 4)
307 IPC against the group of persons but later on 14.04.2024 due to death of injured Juber, offence Section 302 IPC was added by police. He further submitted that the facts in the case clearly indicate that complainant party was aggressor and they initiated assault upon the accused party and it is a case of free fight. He further submitted that a cross FIR no. 172/2024 is also registered by accused party against the complainant. He further referred statement of independent witnesses Jaid Khan, Isfaq Khan @ Happi, Rizwan, Khuna @ Khanna, Rasulddin and Ashu and submitted that they have clearly stated that complainant was aggressor and they have assaulted accused party. He further referred the conclusion drawn by investigation officer and submitted that it was complainant who started altercation and due to sudden provocation there was a free fight resulting into injuries sustained to members of both group. He further referred site plan and submitted that it clearly indicate that it was complainant who suddenly provocated the incident. He also referred result drawn by investigation officer in cross FIR no. 172/2024 and submitted that the cross case is also pending. At last, he submitted that three accused were already granted bail by the trial court and case of present petitioner is identical with those accused.
(3 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:32661]
[CRLMB-14082/2024]
the evidence on record clearly suggest that with Kassi (sharp edged weapon) Juber was assaulted by present petitioner. He further referred site plan and submitted that the incident has occurred outside the house of complainant which also indicate that accused party were aggressor. He further submitted that evidence of eye-witnesses and injured and submitted that all of them have supported the case of prosecution and they clearly stated that the present petitioner has assaulted Juber. He further submitted that the weapon was also recovered at the instance of present petitioner accused and there is no doubt about involvement of present petitioner. He further submitted that post incident the accused party have stopped and threatened complainant from approaching hospital for treatment of Juber and same is mentioned in FIR.
[2025:RJ-JP:32661]
[CRLMB-14082/2024]
(4 of 4)
police has filed a charge-sheet against Zakir, Tarif, Iqbal @ Sannam and Javed under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341 of IPC but closed the matter against Juber (dead) as an acused.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /34
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a case involving a death caused by a head injury and charges under Section 302 IPC?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mausam S/o Mamura
State Of Rajasthan
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
CHETNA BEHRANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
