Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 30187 (RAJ)

RAMESHWAR @ RAME S/O KAMAL SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/11463/2024 · 2025-01-27

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:3731] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11463/2024 Rameshwar @ Rame S/o Kamal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Nagla Peetu, Police Station Gehnoli Mod, District Bharatpur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Sevar). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP, Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2024 registered at Police Station Gehnoli Mod, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 366-A, 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. Later on, Police has filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner. He further submits that according to the prosecution case, deceased was married with the co-accused Rameshwar @ Bhura. After marriage, she died but without informing Police Authority, cremation of the dead body was [2025:RJ-JP:3731] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11463/2024] performed. He contends that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of certain statement of the villagers wherein, they have stated that Rajesh and Rameshwar @ Rame met deceased Sanjana at Railway Station. She asked for shelter from these two accused persons and disclosed her wishes to get married, upon which, she was married to Rameshwar @ Bhura. After marriage, the deceased intended to go to her parental home but they did not allow her and on 21.04.2024, she passed away. But without informing anyone, they cremated the dead body. Learned counsel contends that the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during course of trial and they have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. He argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time. He further argues that the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is allegation against the petitioner that marriage of the deceased was performed with the co-accused against her wishes and petitioner was actively involved in that marriage. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also looking to the material available on record including charge-sheet and the fact that independent witnesses have been declared hostile during course of trial; [2025:RJ-JP:3731] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11463/2024] absence of criminal antecedents; period of custody and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Rameshwar @ Rame S/o Kamal Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/86