Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sitaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:41584) on 10 October, 2024
Author: Rajendra Prakash Soni
Bench: Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:41584]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9732/2024
Sitaram S/o Banwarilal, aged about 19 years, resident of Ward
No.60 Najad Gogamedi Suresiya Police Station Hanumangarh
Junction, District Hanumangarh.
(Presently lodged at District Jail Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nishant Motsara.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Order
10/10/2024
1. Petitioner is lugged and locked in F.I.R No. 178/2024 of
Police Station Sadar, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh, for
the offences under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. He has filed this application for restoration of liberty under
Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 483
of BNSS).
2. The prime contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that at the most, no case for the offence punishable under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code is prima facie made out and the
present incident covers for the offence punishable under Section
304 of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that the material
collected during the investigation does not show intention and
motive of the petitioner Sitaram. The attention of the Court has
[2024:RJ-JD:41584] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9732/2024]
been drawn towards the statement of Anand @ Nandu recorded
under Sections 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail
application.
4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
record carefully.
5. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions,
I am clearly of the view that after perusal of the entire material
available on record, prima facie it appears that not only the
statement of Anand @ Nandu recorded under Section 164 of the
Cr.P.C. but also the concluding part of the charge-sheet are
judgmental in nature, therefore, this Court is not inclined to
enlarge the petitioner at this stage specifically prior to recording of
statement of the eye-witnesses and investigating officer.
6. In view of the enormous prima facie material placed on
record in respect of the applicant, the allegations leveled against
the petitioner, I am of the considered view that looking to the
nature and gravity of the accusation in the instant case, the role
attributed to the petitioner and the case set up against petitioner
in its entirety, the petitioner is not found entitled to be released on
bail.
[2024:RJ-JD:41584] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9732/2024]
7. As a consequence of the above discussion, this Court is not
inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the petitioner under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. and hence, the instant Bail Application stands
dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, anything observed
hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on
merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the
present petition only.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is free to raise all the
contentions before the Trial Court at the time of framing of
charges. He is also free to move bail application afresh
thereafter.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
18-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
