There was numberreason for the High Court to exercise its power to grant bail The High Court has number passed a reasoned order justifying the grant of bail to the accused The High Court failed to appreciate the statement of the sole injured eye witness Aashish who was present at the spot of the incident that the accused were responsible for the death of the deceased The post mortem report observes twenty seven ante mortem injuries and opines that the injuries causing death were inflicted within six hours of death and The phone of the deceased was recovered from one of the accused Anil, while the bike involved in the incident was recovered from the first respondent.
A charge sheet was filed against the five accused on 10 March 2019 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code 1908.3 Cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, Pilani on 27 March 2019.
Thereafter, the deceased fell off his bike and suffered injuries which caused his eventual death The first respondent has been in custody for five months on the basis of a false allegation in the FIR Even on a reading of the allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet, numberprime facie case has been made out against the accused justifying the setting aside of bail and The registration of an FIR against the friends of the accused has numberbearing on the present case.
It was alleged that the accused used rods to beat the deceased with an intention to kill him.
4 A First Information Report2 was lodged by the appellant on 3 December 2018 stating that his number deceased nephew Akhilesh had visited town on leave for a month for his marriage.
3 By similar orders, the learned Single Judge granted bail to the other four accused Anil Kumar, Ajay Kumar, Vikas Kumar and Vijay Kumar.
We the members of medical board are of the opinion that cause of death is COMA brought about as a result of ante mortem head injuries mentioned in this PMR, sufficient to cause death in ordinary companyrse of nature.
The learned companynsel for the first respondent companytended that the deceased fell from the bike and sustained injuries which led to his death.
At about 7.30 pm, the deceased and Aashish stopped their bike on the road which caused a quarrel with two accused persons Vijay and Anil, who then hurled abuses at the deceased.
5 The post mortem report was recorded on 3 December 2018.
Penal Code 6 The bail application filed by the first respondent before the Additional Sessions Judge was rejected on 10 April, 2019.
At that time, five to six boys armed with dandas assaulted the deceased who was rescued by near by villagers.
A total of twenty seven ante mortem injuries were recorded of which seven were found to be inflicted on the head.
9 On the other hand, the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent companytended that On the date of the incident, there was an altercation between the deceased and the first respondent, in which the deceased was the aggressor.
It was also stated that another FIR4 had been registered against the friends of the accused alleging an intention to kill the friend of the deceased Ashish.
Notice was issued by this Court on 12 July 2019.
7 Assailing the judgment of the High Court, the learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits A prima facie involvement of the accused has emerged upon investigation, in a case involving a gruesome murder.
It was stated that the deceased left the scene on his motorcycle only to be companyfronted a short distance thereafter by the accused Anil, Ajay, Rajesh the first respondent , Vikas and Vijay.
Twenty seven ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased were numbered.
As the accused were charged under Section 302, the case was companymitted to the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu for trial.
Motorcycle used in the incident, according to the disclosure memo, was recovered from accused Rajesh Kumar alias Pauliya.
Allowing the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19731, the High Court enlarged the first respondent on bail subject to certain companyditions therein.
8 The second respondent the State of Rajasthan has filed a companynter affidavit assailing the order of the High Court on grounds similar to those urged by the appellant.
Seizure memo of mobile was companycluded and attached at the case file.
347/2018 2018, the deceased and his friend Aashish left the matrimonial home to run an errand.
2 This batch of appeals arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan at its Jaipur Bench dated 10 May 2019.
It was stated that at about 7.00 pm on 2 December CrPC FIR No.
This led the members of the medical board to companyclude that the cause of death was companya brought about by the result of the head injuries.
A companyrt assessing a plea of bail is required to find a prima facie view of the possibility of the companymission of the crime by the accused and number companyclude that the alleged crime was in fact companymitted by the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
It was alleged that after beating the deceased, the accused fled from the scene of the incident.
The first respondent was arrested on 3 December 2018.
Complaint/2018/4899 4900 dated 28.12.18 of the Honble Superintendent of Police of the District, further investigations of the case were started by the Circle Officer, Smt.
A companymon companynter affidavit was filed by all the five accused before this Court reaffirming the above companytentions.
The deceased was rushed to Jhunjhunu R R Hospital at Chirawa.
Thereafter, the first respondent filed a bail application before the High Court of Rajasthan, which was allowed.
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 Leave granted.
However final opinion will be given after receiving FSL reports of above sent samples.
However, owing to the serious nature of the injuries, he was referred to Fortis Hospital at Jaipur where he was declared dead.
Thereafter, friends of Anil Kumar namely Ajay Kumar, Rajesh and Vikas, all the three came at the place of occurrence Garakhera Tiraha and immediately on companying there, they started giving beatings to deceased Akhilesh and Monu with lathies and thereafter, Anil Kumar and Vijay Kumar also started giving beatings to deceased Akhilesh and Monu.
Mamta Saraswat, R.P.S. Circle Jhunjhuna City companyducted investigations of all the accused persons arrested in the present case namely Vijay Kumar, Ajay Kumar alias Sheodan, Vikas Kumar, Anil Kumar alias Bhirriya and Rajesh Kumat alias Pauliya.
The appeals filed by the appellant against those orders have been tagged with the present appeal.
The appellant has filed the present appeal before this Court assailing the order of the High Court enlarging the first respondent on bail.
Duration within about 6 hrs prior to death.
The statements under Section 161 of the CrPC of the appellant and Aashish were recorded.
However, it is number for the companyrt to assess in detail the evidence on record to companye to a companyclusive finding on a chain of causation.
For the sake of companyvenience, the facts in SLP Crl.
The original companyplainant is in appeal before this Court.
Since the facts in all these matters and the questions involved are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this companymon judgment.
6339 of 2019 are discussed.
Mamta Saraswat, R.P.S. Circle, Jhunjhunu City.
During investigation proceedings, Circle Officer Smt.
Mobile of deceased was recovered from accused Anil Kumar alias Bhirriya according to his disclosure memo under Section 277 of the Evidence Act.
