High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 06 RAJ CK 0010

Shyam Ram @ Shyam Lal vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 15 June 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Mehta, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3374 of 2011

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

5 paragraphs · 437 words

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the papers of charge sheet submitted against the Applicant and the co-accused persons.

2.

Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the accused Applicant has been charge sheeted under the provisions of Section 299 Code of Criminal Procedure, and he has been arrested in the month of March, 2011. As per counsel for the Petitioner, recovery in question was made on 16.10.2009 from a Bolero jeep bearing registration number RJ-22-UA-1956, however, registration whereof has been found to be forged. Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that in the said Bolero jeep, two persons were found to be sitting, namely, Khangar Ram and Girdhari Singh. Girdhar Singh is said to have been driving the vehicle. He further submits that these two accused persons after they were taken into custody, made a disclosure to the police officers that the Applicant was also accompanying them. As per counsel for the Applicant, apart from the said disclosure made by the co-accused persons in custody to the police officers, there is no other evidence to connect the Applicant with the alleged crime. He further submits that co-accused, namely, Khangar Ram, who was sitting in the Bolero jeep and was apprehended on the spot, has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.03.2010 while allowing his bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1517/2010. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further submits that said statement of the co-accused persons given to the police officers is of no consequence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

3.

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, however, he is not in a position to refute this contention that except the disclosure statement made by the co-accused persons to the police officers, there is no material on record to connect the Applicant with the alleged crime.

4.

Having considered the above circumstances, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is inclined to accept this bail application u/s 439 Code of Criminal Procedure.

5.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed, it is directed that Applicant Shyam Ram @ Shyam Lal S/o Shivram, shall be released on bail in FIR No. 113/2009 at P.S. Vijaypur, District Chittogarh provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.