Balram S/O Banshilal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2634 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                               10450/2021

Balram S/o Banshilal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Shyamoli Hal
Gojayari Ps Malarna Dungar Dist. Sawaimdhopur (Confined In
Dist. Jail Sawai Madhopur)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sumati Bishnoi present in the Court For Complainant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Meena present in the Court For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

06/07/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.389/2020 was registered at Police Station Malarna

Dungar for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 336,

447, 307, 302 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that some of the

co-accused have been enlarged on bail by the Court. It is also

contended that complainant side were the aggressors. They came

to the field of the petitioner side and attacked them. It is further

contended that petitioner was not having any intention and

knowledge about the act and there is possibility that the deceased

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-10450/2021]

was crushed by the tractor belonging to the complainant side. It is

argued that the wrong facts have been stated in the F.I.R. The

allegation that petitioner caused injuries to Jagdishi by his tractor

is not established, as no injury is found on the person of Jagdishi.

It is also contended that many persons from the side of petitioner

received grievous injuries.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the bail application. It is contended that there is

specific allegation against the petitioner of running over the

tractor over Mansingh, which fact is established from the

postmortem report. It is also contended that bail application of

some of co-accused have been rejected by Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court. Case of petitioner is on worse footing, as there is

specific allegation of running over the tractor over Mansingh.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State and counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to

entertain the bail application.

7. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /56

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)