Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Devendra Kachhawaha, J.
Pramod Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7763/2021 Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3747/2021, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8870/2021 & S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8871/2021
Decided on : 06-09-2021
Bail - Criminal Law - Section 439 Cr.P.C. - Indian Penal Code, Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 447, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B and Arms Act, Sections 27, 30
Fact of the Case:
The bail applications were filed for the accused in judicial custody under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act. The accused were involved in a violent incident, and the bail applications were contested by the prosecution.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while one accused was not entitled to bail due to witness statements, the other accused were granted bail as the trial was expected to take a long time and no specific allegations were made against them in the complaint.
Issues: The issues involved the granting of bail to the accused based on the allegations and witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the specific allegations in the complaint, the statements of witnesses, and the recovery of weapons, and decided to grant bail to some accused while denying it to one based on witness statements.
Final Decision: The bail application for one accused was dismissed, while the bail applications for the other accused were allowed, and they were ordered to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT
1. All the four bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 220/2020, Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 447, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27, 30 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Pradeep Shah, while arguing the bail applications of the accused-petitioners, stated that number of co- accused persons, namely, Savitri Devi, Vimla Devi, Abhishek, Karan Godara, Saurabh, Ajyant, Sunita Devi, Jaipal, Rahul, Dharmendra, Surendra Singh, Indrajeet Singh, Pawan Kumar, Manoj Kumar & Ajay Kumar and Ram Kumar have been granted the benefit of bail by the co-ordinate Bench/s of this Court in different bail applications; that 18 persons have been named in the First Information Report (FIR); that apart from the accused persons named in the FIR, 15 to 20 other persons have also been take part in the incident and they have been present on the place of occurrence; that one agreement to sale has been executed between the father of the complainant - Amritpal Singh and Maniram S/o Takhturam, Gopiram, Mahaveer Prasad S/o Maniram in the year 1988 (05.12.1988); that pursuant to the above agreement, the persons belonging to the complainant side are in possession of the lands in question; that a suit for specific performance filed by the complainant side has been decreed in favour of the complainant side; that as per FIR (available at page number 88 of the charge-sheet), as per para number 5, accused Nos.1 to 4 were having guns in their hands, accused Nos. 5 to 7 were having pistols and other accused were having sharped edged weapons in their hands like, gandasi, swords, country made pistols (deshi kattas), hockey sticks and lathies etc.; that as per FIR, the allegation of having caused the gun-shot injuries on the neck and chest of the deceased Jagmeet Singh has been attributed to the accused Anil Kumar and Mahaveer Prasad; that as a result of the injuries, Jagmeet Singh died on the spot; that so far as the accused Praveen Kumar is concerned, as per FIR, the allegation of firm-arm has been attributed to the accused Praveen Kumar on the thigh of injured Gurlabh Singh; that injuries caused to the injured Harmeet Singh have been attributed to the accused Shyam Sunder, Radheyshyam and Kuldeep; that injuries caused to the injured Sandeep Singh have been attributed to the accused Gopi Ram and Pawan Kumar; that no specific allegations have been levelled against the present accused-petitioners Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar; that the injured persons, namely, Gurlabh Singh Satendra Singh and Sandeep Singh have not levelled any specific allegations against the present accused-petitioners Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar; that the names of the accused persons Pramod Kumar and Arun Kumar, for the first time came in the statement of Ratanlal and in the statement of Gurlabh Singh, recorded on 07.10.2020 and 12.10.2020 respectively; that the statement of witness (complainant) Amritpal Singh have been recorded on 06.10.2020.
4. Learned counsel Mr. I.R. Choudhary arguing the bail application of the accused Anil Kumar stated that as per prosecution itself, country made pistol (deshi katta) has been recovered from the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar whereas, as per version given in the FIR, the accused-petitioner Anil Kumar came on the spot having a gun in his hands.; that as per statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Harmeet Singh, Satendra Singh and Sandeep Singh, injuries of the deceased (Jagmeet Singh) have been attributed to the accused Pramod Kumar & Arun Kumar, not to his client Anil Kumar; that there are material contradictions in the allegations levelled in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
