High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagmohan vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 20 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 RAJ CK 0204

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 143, 307, 323, 325, 341
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 15849 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 368 words

The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.396/2020

registered at Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 143, 323, 341 of I.P.C. and later on for offence under

Sections 323, 341, 325, 307/34 IPC.

After dismissal of the first bail application, charge-sheet has been filed; hence, the second bail application.

Drawing attention of this Court towards the statement of injured Lotanti, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is of inflicting

injury with axe; but, corresponding injury is by blunt weapon. He submitted that there is no repetition of blow. He submitted that the medical opinion as

to injury being dangerous to life, has been given at a very late stage. He submitted that it is a case of version and cross version in which the petitioner

has also received injury although simple in nature. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2020, charge-sheet has already been filed,

trial of the case will take time, he has no criminal antecedents and prayed for his release on second bail.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposing the bail application submitted that injured Lotanti has, in her

statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. specifically attributed the injury on her head to the petitioner. With regard to use of axe and

corresponding injury being by blunt weapon, they submitted that it has nowhere come in evidence either in the statement of Lotanti or otherwise that

axe was used from sharp edged side and even otherwise also, it is a matter of trial. They submitted that in view of gravity of injury on head i.e. vital

part of the body of the injured, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.

Taking into consideration the submissions advanced by learned counsels for the respective parties, the nature and gravity of allegations against the

petitioner, material available in the charge-sheet, especially the statement and injury report of injured Lotanti; but, without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.