Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Bharos Vs. State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

Ram Bharos vs State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 04, 2011
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/920473

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Case No. CRLMB 3206 of 2011
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 439

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Bharos

Advocate Shri, Abdul Kalam Khan, Adv.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor

Advocate Shri. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, Adv

Legal References

Acts
Code Of Criminal Procedure (CRPC) - Section 439

Excerpt

.....since his case is identical and in fact it stands on better footings than that of co-accused ram kalyan, whose second bail application no.3505/2010 was allowed by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 13.01.2011 on consideration of fact that eye witness pw-7 kalu lal has stated that co-accused ram kalyan was having sword and inflicted injuries on the person of deceased nand behari by sword but according to statement of pw-3 dr. arun sharma there was no injury found to have been caused by sword on the person of deceased nand behari. reliance was placed on another statement of pw-8 brij raj, who is also an eye witness of the incident but he has not assigned any specific injury to have been caused by any particular weapon against co-accused ram kalyan. learned counsel argued that case of petitioner is identical to that of co-accused ram kalyan, rather it stands on better footing than that of co-accused ram kalyan because pw-7 kalu lal has also stated that petitioner ram bharos too was having sword in his hand and caused injury by use of sword on the person of deceased nand behari, whereas, according to statement of dr. arun sharma, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased nand behari, there was no injury by sword. similarly pw-8 brij raj also in his statement has not specifically assigned any injury by any particular weapon to the petitioner ram bharos. learned counsel submitted that other witness, namely, pw-4 prabhulal, pw-5 mohan and pw-6 kanhaiyalal have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. petitioner is in jail for last one and a half year and that trial is still likely to take a long because no presiding officer is posted in trial court. there is no other case ever registered against petitioner. 3. learned public prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, i deem it just and.....

Full Judgment

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.

2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that petitioner was arrested along-with several other co-accused persons, since his case is identical and in fact it stands on better footings than that of co-accused Ram Kalyan, whose second bail application no.3505/2010 was allowed by a coordinate bench of this court vide order dated 13.01.2011 on consideration of fact that eye witness PW-7 Kalu Lal has stated that co-accused Ram Kalyan was having sword and inflicted injuries on the person of deceased Nand Behari by sword but according to statement of PW-3 Dr. Arun Sharma there was no injury found to have been caused by sword on the person of deceased Nand Behari. Reliance was placed on another statement of PW-8 Brij Raj, who is also an eye witness of the incident but he has not assigned any specific injury to have been caused by any particular weapon against co-accused Ram Kalyan. Learned counsel argued that case of petitioner is identical to that of co-accused Ram Kalyan, rather it stands on better footing than that of co-accused Ram Kalyan because PW-7 Kalu Lal has also stated that petitioner Ram Bharos too was having sword in his hand and caused injury by use of sword on the person of deceased Nand Behari, whereas, according to statement of Dr. Arun Sharma, who conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Nand Behari, there was no injury by sword. Similarly PW-8 Brij Raj also in his statement has not specifically assigned any injury by any particular weapon to the petitioner Ram Bharos. Learned counsel submitted that other witness, namely, PW-4 Prabhulal, PW-5 Mohan and PW-6 Kanhaiyalal have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Petitioner is in jail for last one and a half year and that trial is still likely to take a long because no presiding officer is posted in trial court. There is no other case ever registered against petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application.

4. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Ram Bharos Son of Shri Ram Kalyan, Resident of Kanda-Fal-Kanwas, District Kota (presently confined in Central Jail, Kota) be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.42/2009, Police Station Sangod, Kota, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

5. The bail application stands disposed of.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial