Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhura Ram vs State on 1 February, 2021
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2139/2020
Bhura Ram S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 50 Years, By Caste Jat,
R/o Pacharwali, Ps Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh.
(At Present Lodged At Sub Jail, Bhadra, Distt. Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Advocate assisted
by Mr. Deepender Rajpurohit (through
VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
01/02/2021
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the
learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on
record.
The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 86/2018 of Police
Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 341, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. He has
preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
allegation against the petitioner is to the effect that he inflicted
injury by an axe on the head of deceased Shanker Lal, whereas,
allegation against co-accused Rajesh is to the effect that he
inflicted injury on the head of deceased Shanker Lal by a hockey
stick. Learned counsel has invited my attention towards the
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2139/2020]
postmortem report and argued that as per the report, two injuries
were found on the head of deceased, out of which, one was
incised wound and another was lacerated wound. It is argued that
the lacerated wound assigned to co-accused Rajesh is more fatal
than the incised wound assigned to the petitioner. It is submitted
that several witnesses have also been examined before the trial
court and all of them have not supported prosecution story and
turned hostile. It is further submitted that co-accused Rajesh, to
whom the fatal bony injury was assigned, has already been
enlarged on bail, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be
enlarged on bail. It is submitted that out of 36 prosecution
witnesses, only 20 witnesses have been examined till date and the
petitioner is behind the bars for last more than three years and
trial of the case will take time.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that three eye witnesses namely
complainant Banwarilal, wife of deceased Pushpa and son-in-law
of deceased Shanker Lal in their Court statements have
specifically alleged that the fatal injury, which is incised wound,
was caused by the petitioner and from the postmortem report, it
is clear that the said injury is 15 cm x 2 cm x bone deep and, in
such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged
on bail.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and after going through the material available on
record and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the
offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2139/2020]
I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the
petitioner.
Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner
under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/7-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
