Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1999 DIGILAW 760 (RAJ)

Jeevan Ram S/o Mana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

1999-06-17

M.A.A.KHAN

body1999
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. 2. Jecvan Ram-applicant had two daughters Kamla and Santosh. Kamla was married with Suraj Rain and Santosh with Gopal (deceased), both sons of Mangu Ram-complainant. Gopal-deceased died on 17.12.1998 at the house of the applicant. The applicants-Khiya Ram, Pusha Rain and Shravan Lal were suspected to have caused the death of Gopal-deceased. Except Pusha Ram the remaining three have already been charge-sheeted by the police. Shravan Lal and Khiya Ram Co-accused are stated to have been admitted to bail by this Court or by the trial Court. 3. It was submitted that the relations between Gopal and his father had become strained and therefore Gopal had started living at and working as labourer with one Kesa Ram of village India and he had come to the house of the applicant and that thereafter he had died, may be under suspicious circumstances. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on 6.1.1999 a village Panchayat was called and therein he was forced to pay a sum of Rs. 61,000/- to the Panchas of the Panchayat in connection with the death of Gopal; that the applicant complained against the conduct of the Panchas and thereafter on 29.1.1999 Mangu Ram, father of the deceased Gopal, lodged a complaint against the present applicant and other members of his family. It was submitted that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, establishing any connection of the applicant with the death of the deceased. On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there was evidence of extra-judicial confession made by Jeevan Ram, Khiya Ram and Pusa Ram before the members of the Panchayat and such confession incriminates the present applicant also. 5. Khiya Ram and Shravan Lal have been, as stated above and admitted to bail. Pusha Ram has not been challaned. 6. On consideration of overall facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the oral arguments advanced by both the sides, I think it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Petitioner-Jeevan Ram Sto Mana Ram he released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before that Court as and when ordered by the Court. He shall not try to influence the witnesses during the trial. 7. Petitioner-Jeevan Ram Sto Mana Ram he released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 40,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before that Court as and when ordered by the Court. He shall not try to influence the witnesses during the trial. The application is allowed accordingly.Bail granted. *******