Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Prahlad Sharma S/O Shyamlal vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:50353) on 6 December, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JP:50353]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14900/2024
Prahlad Sharma S/o Shyamlal, R/o Village Sikrori, Police Station
Kumher, District Bharatpur, Presently Resident Of Subhash
Nagar, Ashok Park Ke Pass, Bharatpur Police Station Kotwali,
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail,
Bharatpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)
Order
06/12/2024
1. This Court has occasioned to go through the niceties of the
judgment passed by this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024
in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos.
9174/2024 and 9175/2024. The said judgment is reproduced
herein under:
“1. The instant bail applications under Sections 439
Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who
are in judicial custody in connection with FIR
No.533/2021 registered at the Police Station Kotwali,
Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 147, 148,
149, 452, 302, 120-B of the IPC and Section 3/25 (6)
of the Arms Act.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on
07.11.2021, a police report was lodged by the
complainant, Chandravati, addressed to the SHO, Police
Station Kotwali, Bharatpur, alleging inter alia that in the(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:50353] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14900/2024]morning around at 9:00 a.m. when she along with her
husband Surender, her son Sachin and daughters
Neelam, Priyanka and Reena were sitting at their home,
suddenly 10-11 persons forcefully entered their home.
The petitioners were having fire weapons in their hands
at the time of incident. The petitioners along with
others allegedly opened fire upon the complainant’s
husband Surendra and her son Sachin, and as a
necessary consequence of which both succumbed to
death. It is alleged that a day prior to the incident, the
accused had threatened the victim family of dire
consequences and a report to this effect had been
forwarded to the Police Control Room.
3. During the course of investigation, the
investigating agency collected material to substantiate
the charges and it was found that the allegations were
prima facie proved. Thus, a charge sheet was submitted
against the petitioners and others in the Court
concerned and the matter is currently pending
investigation.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have
minutely gone through the record available to this
Court.
5. Besides the statements of the victim’s family and
some independent witnesses, it come to fore that
someone had captured the video of entire crime scene
and the same had gone viral. The DVD of the above
video was collected by the Investigating Officer and a
memo dated 03.06.2022 has been prepared.
6. A perusal of the Memo dated 03.06.2022
revealing that the present petitioners had entered in
the house of the deceased and whereupon loud noise of
firing appeared and whereafter the accused made their
exit from that place.
7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case and looking to the gravity and nature of the
offence, and the manner in which a gruesome incident
took place in which a father and son have been
murdered in their own house while sitting with the(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:50353] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14900/2024]family. This Court is of the view that a strong prima
facie case is made out against the petitioners as
sufficient material is available on record to substantiate
and support the charge, therefore, does not feel it
appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the
petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the petitioners are
hereby dismissed.”
2. In view of the above, it appears that sufficient material is
there to show prima facie involvement of the petitioner in
commission of the crime.
3. Recently, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of X Vs.
State of Rajasthan and Ors. [Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.13378/2024] decided on 27.11.2024 has
propounded the following propositions:
“14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity,
etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution
starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial
Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining
the bail application of the Accused.
15. Over a period of time, we have noticed two things, i.e.,
(i) either bail is granted after the charge is framed and
just before the victim is to be examined by the
prosecution before the trial court, or (ii) bail is granted
once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is
complete by looking into some discrepancies here or
there in the deposition and thereby testing the
credibility of the victim.
16. We are of the view that the aforesaid is not a correct
practice that the Courts below should adopt. Once the
trial commences, it should be allowed to reach to its
final conclusion which may either result in the
conviction of the Accused or acquittal of the Accused.
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:44:11 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:50353] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14900/2024]
The moment the High Court exercises its discretion in
favour of the Accused and orders release of the
Accused on bail by looking into the deposition of the
victim, it will have its own impact on the pending trial
when it comes to appreciating the oral evidence of the
victim. It is only in the event if the trial gets unduly
delayed and that too for no fault on the part of the
Accused, the Court may be justified in ordering his
release on bail on the ground that right of the Accused
to have a speedy trial has been infringed.”
4. Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J
Ashutosh-29
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:44:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)