Surendra S/O Girdharilal Vs State of Rajasthan

The instant third application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.344/2022 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC in the court concerned.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.07.2024. Counsel submits that second bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of seven named material witnesses

¶15

[2026:RJ-JP:7173]

¶16

[CRLMB-2436/2026]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

including the Informant. Counsel submits that all the material witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. At initial stage, it was disclosed by the witnesses to the Medical Experts, where deceased was brought for the treatment in intoxicated condition that he sustained injuries resulting from a fall while in an intoxicated state. However, later on FIR was registered alleging therein that deceased disclosed the fact to Informant that he was badly beaten up by the petitioner and others due to which he sustained injuries. Counsel submits that now Informant has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not alleged anything in examination-in-chief and he completely remained silent and has stated that police personnel took his signatures on report and other documents.

¶19

It is contended that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. He contends that petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2022 and as such, till date, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and four months. Counsel submits that the period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. He, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

[2026:RJ-JP:7173]

[CRLMB-2436/2026]

(3 of 3)

According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is the brother of the girl ‘P’ with whom deceased was found in compromising position and therefore, petitioner and other family members gave beating to the deceased and due to the injuries, he died, but said girl ‘P’ has not been included in the list of witnesses while Investigating Agency has relied upon her statement.

¶25

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the statements of the material witnesses and the facts that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2022 and till date, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and four months; absence of criminal antecedents; trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶26

Consequently, this third bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Surendra S/o Girdharilal shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail and would not have any impact on trial of the case in any manner.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

Manoj Solanki /68

Surendra S/O Girdharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra S/O Girdharilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Premchand Jain S/O Padamchand Jain Vs Union of India

Balkishan S/O Late Shri Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan Husaain S/O Shri Samsudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Suryakant Gupta S/O Shambudayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Brajvardhan S/O Shri Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramcharan S/O Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan