Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajuram Kaswan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12431) on 5 March, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12431]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 11209/2024
Rajuram Kaswan S/o Chuna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Kesardesar Jatan, P.s. Deshnok, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Shivlal S/o Ratiram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Kesaridesar Jatan, P.s. Deshnok, Tehsil And Dist. Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.S.S. Kharlia, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kinjal Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
05/03/2025
This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483
BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.135/2022, registered at Police Station
Deshnok, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 341,
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-
accused Sitaram Kaswan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
13992/2023) has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2023. Learned counsel
submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable
from that of the case of Sitaram Kaswan who has already been
enlarged on bail.
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:40:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12431] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11209/2024]
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be
granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant Shri Bholaram Chahar
submitted that in the present case, looking to the specific role
assigned to the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime, he
does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
The order dated 21.11.2023 passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Sitaram
Kaswan is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an
instant applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-
petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein
below:
S.No. Particulars of the case 1. FIR Number No.135/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Deshnok 3. District Bikaner 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 323, 341, 302, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. 5. Offences added, if any -- 3. Date of passing of impugned 20.10.2023 order
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 is no specific act attributed to the present
petitioner. Neither his name was mentioned in the FIR nor in the
statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. It seems
that the name of the petitioner was added later as an afterthought
during recording of statement under Section 164 of CrPC. There are no(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:40:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12431] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11209/2024]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 and learned counsel for the complainant
oppose the bail application and submit that the present case is not fit
for enlargement of accused on bail.
4. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and
have perused the material available on record. It is stated by the
complainant in the FIR as well as his statements that the dispute
started from the time when a few people including his father stopped a
group of boys who were hooting and blowing horn incessantly allegedly
under the influence of alcohol and called their parents while keeping
them there. Interestingly, there is no mention of the present petitioner
in the names of boys stopped that day as well as in the entire episode
put forth by the prosecution. Moreover, it is stated by the complainant
in his cross-examination that the complainant party had no previous
animosity with the petitioner. The submission on behalf of the petitioner
that there is no specific or overt act attributed to the petitioner seems
to be worth considering in light of the fact that there is no specific
evidence against the petitioner, even for the namesake, at this stage.
The genuineness of the allegations is to be adjudged after appreciation
of evidence during trial. Needless to say, none of the observations
made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during
trial and shall not influence the trial judge in any manner whatsoever
while presiding over this matter. Looking to the totality of facts and
circumstances of the case and the possibility that the trial may take
long time to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge
the petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner 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. ”
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that case of
the present petitioner is not worse than the case of co-accused
Sitaram Kaswan who has already been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court. This Court further prima facie finds
that the learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any
apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution
witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is
enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, without expressing any
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:40:18 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12431] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11209/2024]
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the third bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner- Rajuram Kaswan S/o Chuna Ram, arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.135/2022, registered at Police Station
Deshnok, District Bikaner, shall be released on bail, if not wanted
in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that
Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon
to do so till completion of the trial.
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
160-divya/-
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:40:18 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link