Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Chotu Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25895) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:25895]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 5878/2025
Chotu Ram Choudhary S/o Lachharam, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Vidyalay Ke Pass Mukhay Abadi Nandoli Baas, Police
Station Makrana, District Deedwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
(Presently Lodged In Jail Nagour), )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
23/05/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 483 of BNSS at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 04/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Makrana 3. District Deedwana-Kuchaman 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Section 143, 341, 323, 354, 376, 511, 379 IPC 5. Offences added, if any 302 and 120-B IPC
6. Date of passing of impugned 30.04.2025
order
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:33:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25895] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5878/2025]
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. This Court
observes that the allegations made by the eye-witnesses are
omnibus in nature, without any specific injury being
attributed to the accused. The injuries mentioned are
collectively assigned to as many as 11 accused persons. The
medical evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-11
(Doctor), reveals that while fifteen injuries were found on the
body of the deceased out of which only two were grievous in
nature, a fracture of the left-hand finger and a fracture of the
fibula in the right leg, while the remaining injuries were
simple and not located on vital parts of the body. The Post
Mortem Report ExP54, initially left the cause of death
inconclusive, later opining it to be probably due to pulmonary
thromboembolism following receipt of the histo pathological
report. The doctor has clearly stated that such a condition
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:33:50 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25895] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5878/2025]
cannot be externally induced, and none of the injuries,
individually or collectively, were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. It is further noted that part
of the incident is said to have occurred within the premises of
the accused, lending plausibility to the defence version that
the deceased entered their house. The accused has already
remained in custody for about 1.5 years, and in view of the
medical evidence, the charge under Section 302 IPC appears
contestable and requires thorough adjudication during trial.
Considering the medical report, totality of circumstances and
the nature of allegations, this Court finds it a fit case to grant
bail to the accused. Furthermore, there is high probability
that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these
facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the
benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 483
BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner
as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided
he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court
concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called
upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
108-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 28/05/2025 at 09:33:50 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)