Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4211 (RAJ)

PHULA @ PHULIYA @ PHULLYA S/O SHRI HANUMAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/1094/2025 · 2025-01-31

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:4466] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1094/2025 Phula @ Phuliya @ Phullya S/o Shri Hanuman, R/o Jobner Road Mahala, Police Station Maujmabad, District Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Sambhar Lake). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 31/01/2025 1. This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 123/2024 registered at Police Station Maujamabad, District Dudu for offences u/S 302 & 394 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and there is no trustworthy evidence which connects the accused petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submits that there is no evidence either as regards last seen or also there is no incriminating evidence which could be made the basis for convicting the accused petitioner. He further submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2024 and after completion of investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet in the matter. [2025:RJ-JP:4466] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1094/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. On consideration of the averments made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner and on perusal of the charge-sheet, the evidence which is said to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged incident is the recovery of certain articles, but there is no proper identification of those articles. 5. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the fact that the accused petitioner is in custody since 14.04.2024 and this is a case of circumstantial evidence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /447