Rajasthan High Court
Rajendra Chaudhary S/O Shri Omprakash ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:44770) on 24 October, 2024
Author: Birendra Kumar
Bench: Birendra Kumar
[2024:RJ-JP:44770]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11377/2024
Rajendra Chaudhary S/o Shri Omprakash Chaudhary, R/o Kota
Road, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP, Rajasthan High Court
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv assisted by
Mr. Manav Sharma through VC.
Mr. Gaurav Jain through VC.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta through VC.
Mr. Veerendra Singh through VC.
Ms. Jaya Mitra through VC.
Mr. Arpit Khandelwal through VC.
Mr. Sita Ram Gupta through VC.
Mr. K.L. Vishnoi.
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP through VC.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Maheshwari
through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
24/10/2024
1. This Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application has been brought
under Section 482 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.85/2023
registered with Police Station Kekri Shahar, District Ajmer for
offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 308, 365 IPC.
2. The first was refused on 13.10.2023 in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10807/2023. By the same order,
some other co-accused were allowed anticipatory bail by this
Court. In the matter of petitioner, this Court observed in para no.
6 as follows:-
[2024:RJ-JP:44770] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11377/2024]
" Petitioner-Rajendra Chaudhary allegedly caused
injury with an iron rod at the head of the informant. The
doctor has found injury on the head of the informant.
Since Rajendra Chaudhary had knowledge that his act
might cause death, hence, his prayer for anticipatory
bail is hereby refused.
Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application qua
the petitioner Rajendra Chaudhary stands dismissed.
He is directed to surrender within ten days and pray for
regular bail."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in Ganesh Raj
versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Criminal Misc. II Bail Application
No.783/2005, decided on 1.4.2005, a Full Bench of this Court held
that second bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is
maintainable on new grounds and facts. Learned counsel further
contends that at the time of decision on the first anticipatory bail
application, the petitioner could not bring to the notice of the
Court some previous orders of this Court, one was in Rameshwar
Vs State; S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5115/1992,
decided on 16.02.1993. In that case no grievous injury was there
on the head of the injured, which the petitioner had allegedly
caused by sharp edged weapon. Anticipatory bail was granted to
petitioner Rameshwar.
In the case on hand, the doctor has not found grievous
injury on the head, rather specifically has reported that simple
injury on the head of the injured was there.
4. Again in Sita Ram Gurjar Vs. State of Rajasthan through
Public Prosecutor; S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.8339/2012, decided on 23.08.2012 by the Bench of Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta (as his Lordship then was). The case
[2024:RJ-JP:44770] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11377/2024]
was under Section 308 IPC besides other minor offences of the
Penal Code, there was case and counter-case. The accused side
had also sustained head injury during incident. The injury
allegedly caused by the petitioner was simple in nature.
Learned counsel submits that in the case on hand Rajdeep
Singh of the petitioner side had also sustained head injury. In Sita
Ram Gurjar's case (supra), anticipatory bail was allowed.
Learned counsel next relied on the judgment of Patna High
Court in Md. Neyaz @ Neyaz Ahmad Vs. State of Bihar, decided on
25.05.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Case No.18061/2023. That was
also a case under Section 307 IPC besides other ancillary offences.
Allegation against petitioner Md. Neyaz and one Md. Azad was of
commission of assault with daab and sword on the injured. The
injured had sustained cut injury which was simple in nature.
Considering the simple nature of the injury found, the Patna High
Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners of that case.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer on
the ground that this Court had recorded reasons for refusal of the
bail. In the first order, there was direction to the petitioner to
surrender and pray for regular bail but the petitioner neither
surrendered nor challenged the said order.
6. Considering the facts as held by the Full Bench, second
anticipatory bail application is maintainable till the accused is
arrested in the meantime and also considering the earlier view of
this Court and some other High Courts that even, if any injury was
caused on head and the injury was simple in nature and both
[2024:RJ-JP:44770] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11377/2024]
sides had sustained head injury, prayer for anticipatory bail could
have been considered.
7. In the circumstance, let the petitioner above-named be
released on bail in the aforesaid FIR, if he is not wanted in any
other case, provided that he furnishes a bail bond of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court with the following conditions:-
(i) the petitioner shall fully co-operate with the
investigation/trial, failing which, the trial judge would be at liberty
to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(ii) the petitioner shall not leave the Country without permission of
the trial Court otherwise it would amount to disobedience of the
order of this Court and would be a ground for cancellation of bail.
(iii) the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence.
(iv) one of the surety shall be resident of territorial jurisdiction of
the trial Court.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
23-sumer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
