[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shahrukh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:26824) on 5 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:26824]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4789/2025
Shahrukh S/o Roshan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Near Mangu Ki
Dukan Near Sawalakhi Talai Ward No 26 Bandra Bas, Bikaner P.s.
Kotegate Bikaner (At Presently Lodged In Central Jail Bikaner )
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP
Mr. Narendra Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)
Order
05/06/2025
1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS (439
of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved against
the order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge
Bikaner in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Case No.611/2025 whereby
the learned Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner.
The petitioner has been arrested in connection with the FIR
No.45/2025 registered at Police Station Kotgate District Bikaner
for offences punishable under Sections 109(2), 333 of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has been
falsely implicated in the present case and a family dispute has
been disguised in the colour of a criminal case. He further submits
that the averments made in the FIR itself reveal that there is no
substance in the case. The injury report prepared on 14.02.2025
reveal that the injury was treated to be simple, as per the
(Downloaded on 05/06/2025 at 09:34:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26824] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4789/2025]
radiologist’s report. However, subsequently only with a view to
implicate him for the offence in question on 27.03.2025 a fresh
injury report has been submitted based on an MRI report and the
injury in question has been shown to be grievous or dangerous to
life whereas no such corresponding injury was found on the body
of Raju. He further submits that parties being the close relatives
have entered a compromise and thus there is no reason to
continue the incarceration of the petitioner.
3. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as the
learned counsel for the complainant admit that the parties have
entered a compromise. The learned Public Prosecutor is not in a
position to dispute the MLC-cum-X-ray report dated 14.02.2025
issued by the Medical Jurist, S.P. Medical College, Bikaner. He,
however, submits that looking into the nature of the offence
alleged, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
4. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case,
after hearing arguments of the parties from both the sides and
considering the fact that both the complainant and the accused
are related through blood and also considering that the injury was
initially shown to be simple in nature and also the fact of the
compromise being entered between the parties, the bail
application of the petitioner is allowed.
5. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483
B.N.S.S. is allowed. The accused/ petitioner Shahrukh son of
Roshan arrested in connection with FIR No.45/2025, registered at
Police Station Kotgate, 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
(Downloaded on 05/06/2025 at 09:34:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26824] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4789/2025]
satisfaction of the trial court, for his appearance before the Court
on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do
so till the completion of the trial.
6. It is however clarified that at this stage the observations
made are prima facie and the trial court shall proceed to decide
the case on its own merit without being influenced by any
observations made by this Court.
(SANDEEP SHAH (VACATION JUDGE)),J
15-charul/-
(Downloaded on 05/06/2025 at 09:34:56 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link