Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 588 (RAJ)

Rajuram Kaswan v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-05

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1.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, 506, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. 2. 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. 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 6. 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 order 20.10.2023 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 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 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. 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.” 7. 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 opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. 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. 9. 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.