Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Karan Hari @ Raja S/O Shriram Hari vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:2031) on 15 January, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:2031]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16521/2024
Karan Hari @ Raja S/o Shriram Hari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Pratap Chowk, Harijan Basti, Ladpura, Kota, Police Station
Kotwali, District Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present In Confined In
Central Jail, Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
15/01/2025
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483
of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.88/2024 registered at Police Station
Kotwali, District Kota City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 449, 450 &
452 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for
the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302,
307, 323, 449, 450, 452, 324 & 120B of IPC and Section 4/25 of
Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that
according to the statement of eye-witnesses recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.PC, it is evident that petitioner was not present
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 01:11:38 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2031] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16521/2024]
at the place of incident. Counsel submits that according to the
statement of eye-witnesses, accused persons namely Anil @
Sawan @ Badal, Sachin @ Gullu, Sahil, Karan Narwal, Jitendra @
Jeetu & Akash @ Veer were involved in killing of two persons.
Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused on the
basis of information furnished by the co-accused Sachin @ Gullu
under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Counsel submits that
charges have been framed in this matter and petitioner has been
charged for the offence punishable 120B of IPC. Counsel submits
that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Counsel
further submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2024 and
trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner
would not serve any fruitful purpose.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel
for the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant submits that
petitioner was in contact with the co-accused Sachin @ Gullu who
inflicted knife injuries to the deceased. He submits that it is evident
from the charge-sheet that there are total 10 calls between
petitioner and co-accused Sachin @ Gullu. He further submits that
petitioner made 3 calls to the co-accused Sachin @ Gullu and
received 7 incoming calls from him.
4. I have considered the contentions.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and especially the fact that admittedly petitioner was
not present in the place of incident; charges have been framed in
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 01:11:38 AM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2031] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16521/2024]
this matter and petitioner is charged for the offence punishable
under Section 120B of IPC; absence of criminal antecedents of the
petitioner; petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2024, but without
commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it
fit and proper to allow this bail application.
6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed
that accused-petitioner Karan Hari @ Raja S/o Shriram Hari
shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in
the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with
two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five
Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court
with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any
court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of
hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
7. Any observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the
instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial
of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /300
(Downloaded on 01/02/2025 at 01:11:38 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
