Laxman @ Lachha vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 910 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 910 Raj
Judgement Date : 23 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Laxman @ Lachha vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 January, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 556/2023

Laxman @ Lachha S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Meghpura, P.s. Chhotisadri, Dist. Pratapgarh (Raj.). (Presently Confined At Sub Jail, Nimbahera, Dist. Chittorgarh).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Saruparia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

23/01/2023

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.233/2018,

Police Station Badi Sadri, Chittorgarh, for the offences under

Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly

situated co-accused Anil and Champalal have already been

enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order

dated 19.12.2022 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Applications

Nos.15989/2022 and 14690/2022) and the case of the present

petitioner is not distinguishable from the above named co-

accused. The order dated 19.12.2022 reads as under:-

"1.The instant bail applications have been filed by the petitioners No.1 Anil S/o Champa Lal and No.2

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-556/2023]

Champalal S/o ShriGhasi @ Ghisalal under Section 439 Cr.P.C against the order impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIRNo. 233/2018 registered at Police Station Badisadri, District Chittorgarh for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 120-B.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no evidence to show the culpability of the petitioner and there is no evidence to show any agreement of mind to conspire death of the victim. He placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 SC 2991. He further urges that they have nothing to do with the alleged offence and no useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications.

4. Heard. It is emanating from the challan papers that the FIR came to lodged at the behest of the complainant Mukesh wherein there are direct allegations that the accused Nanalal, Laxman and Jagdish were made assault over the deceased Madanlal inflicted fire arm injury to him and as a consequence of which, he scummed to the injury. The present applicants have been made an accused in this case on the accusation that they facilitated the crime and hatched the conspiracy with the principal accused to commit the offence. He submits that in order to collect evidence with regard to culpability of the petitioner there must be some evidence to show agreement of mind between the petitioner and the assailants.

5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take longtime to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioners shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each 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."

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-556/2023]

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed this bail

application.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and

from the perusal of the statement of Smt. Anchi Bai, it is clear

that specific allegation of gun-shot has been levelled against

accused Nanalal. Since there is no specific allegation levelled

against the present petitioner, the case of the petitioner cannot be

distinguished with the case of the co-accused persons who have

already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, without expressing any

opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the

opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to