High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 02 RAJ CK 0438

Raju vs State

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 24 February 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2462 Of 2020

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 422 words

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R.

No.461/2019, P.S. Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh, for the offences under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 Arms Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, there is no credible evidence worth the name to implicate the petitioner in the offence alleged. He further submits that the information given under Section 27 of the Evidence Act with respect to pistol being handed over to him by the principal accused persons after the incident cannot form the basis of conviction in this case. He further submits that the investigating agency has stated in the charge-sheet that the petitioner had done reiki of the place and he came to the Court where Bhagat Ram was brought, identified him and informed the movement of Bhagat Ram to the principal accused persons Anil and Tulsi Ram. The basis of this observation by the investigating agency is conspicuously missing in the charge-sheet/challan papers and this finding is based on no evidence. The recovery of mobile from father of the

petitioner-Mohan Lal too, is of no assistance to the prosecution as the same cannot form the basis for implicating the present petitioner in this case.

Learned Public Prosecutor fails to satisfy this Court that on what basis the investigating agency has made the observation with respect to the presence of the petitioner in the Court premises and doing reiki. The answer was in negative. The learned Public Prosecutor fairly submits that he could not lay his hands on the materials to substantiate the findings of the investigating agency.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Raju S/o Mohan Lal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.461/2019, P.S. Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.