Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
Mahendra S/o Shree Babulal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos. 9506, 9507 of 2023
Decided On : 21-11-2023
Bail - Offences under IPC - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B - The court dismissed the bail applications after considering the totality of the facts and circumstances, particularly the seriousness of the offences and the allegations against the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The accused petitioners were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B of IPC in connection with the brutal assault and death of the deceased. The first bail application filed on behalf of some of the accused petitioners was rejected earlier.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased's statements and corroborating reports indicated the accused petitioners' involvement in the assault. It also noted the recoveries of weapons and vehicles made at the instance of the accused during the investigation.
Issues: The issues revolved around the severity of the offences, the role of the accused in the alleged crime, and the statements of the deceased and the eye-witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the common object of assaulting and killing, and the inability to ascertain individual roles of the accused at the pending trial stage.
Final Decision: The bail applications were dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the findings were for the limited purpose of adjudication of the bail applications and should not prejudice the trial court.
ORDER :
1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested and chargesheeted for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B of IPC in connection with FIR No. 110/2021 registered at Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur.
2. By way of present order, the second bail application on behalf of accused-petitioner Mahendra and Mahipal and the first bail application filed on behalf of accused-petitioner Suresh Badiyasar are being decided.
3. The common allegation against the present accused petitioners is that on 01.10.2021, they brutally assaulted the deceased-Sunil and inflicted multiple injuries upon him including a head injury. The deceased-Sunil succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment.
4. The first bail application (Crl. M.B. No. 1145/2023 and Crl. M.B. No. 1147/2023) filed on behalf of petitioners-Mahendra and Mahipal were rejected by this Court vide a common order dated 26.04.2023.
5. The order dated 26.04.2023 is reproduced below for ready reference:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that from the perusal of the post-mortem report of the deceased dated 12.10.2021, issued by a civil hospital, Ahmedabad, it is apparent that the cause of death was cardiac respiratory failure due to injuries on the body and its complications. Learned counsel submitted that though the deceased in his statements dated 02.10.2021 has not specified the injuries caused by the accused persons namely Mahipal, Mahendra and Suresh but from the perusal of FIR and the statement of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it is evident that the allegation of inflicting head injuries upon deceased from an iron rod has been levelled against co-accused-Suresh. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that since the head injury has not been attributed to the present petitioners, the benefit of bail may be extended to them. Learned counsel lastly submitted that a co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.12.2022, has already enlarged co-accused-Surendra @ Chhela Ram S/o Shri Om Prakash (in S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 9500/2022), Shivkaran @ Siyaram S/o Harsukh Ram vide order dated 24.11.2022 (in S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 14952/2022), Shobha vide order dated 17.11.2022 (in S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 14361/2022), Mahendra vide order dated 13.07.2022 (in S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 6886/2022) and Sohan Lal and Another vide order dated 17.02.2022 (in S.B. Crl. M.B. No. 1356/2022) on bail. Learned counsel thus implored the Court to accept the bail application.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail applications and submitted that the petitioners in a pre-planned manner brutally assaulted the deceased with iron rods and lathis. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the post-mortem report is indicative of the fact that the cause of death is the injuries caused by the petitioners on the body of the deceased and its complications. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that looking to the seriousness of the offence committed by the petitioners, they do not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Heard.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly keeping in view of the fact that all accused persons were alleged to have been armed with lathis and iron rods, were charged with Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 342, 364, 302, 458 and 120-B of IPC, at this stage it would not be justified and proper for this Court to consider the individual role of the accused persons.
It is also to be noted that deceased and other eye witnesses in their stateme
The severity of the offences, the common object of the accused, and the inability to ascertain individual roles at the pending trial stage were crucial in the court's decision to dismiss the bail app....
A subsequent bail application must show substantial changes in circumstances to be considered, otherwise it is treated as a review of the earlier rejection.
Bail can be granted when allegations are not specific and co-accused have been released, reflecting the principle of equality in legal treatment.
The court granted bail based on the absence of weapons, lack of witness intimidation, and the delay in trial not attributable to the petitioners.
The court held that the serious nature of the alleged crime and substantial evidence against the applicants warranted the denial of bail at this stage.
The court ruled that bail must be granted based on the presence of concrete evidence; mere allegations are insufficient to deny bail, especially in conspiracy cases.
The absence of direct evidence and the lack of witness tampering risk justified granting bail despite serious allegations.
Bail can be granted if the nature of alleged offenses does not justify custodial detention, particularly when the accused has clean antecedents and no immediate act causing fatal consequences is esta....
The court has the discretion to grant bail based on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
Bail can be granted when the evidence does not directly link the accused to the commission of the fatal act, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence.
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
