Vikas Chanwariya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1071) on 8 January, 2025

0
79

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Vikas Chanwariya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1071) on 8 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:1071]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
 S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10920/2024

Vikas Chanwariya S/o Shri Suresh Chanwariya, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Nawal Basti, Geeta Bhawan Ke Pass, Sardarpura
Teesari Road, P.s. Khanda Falsa, Jodhpru East (Presently Lodged
In Central Jail, Jodhpur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Om Prakash Joshi
                               Mr. Karan Joshi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

08/01/2025
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

(483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been

arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.609/2022 registered at Police

Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 147,

148, 302/149 and 120-B of IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case for the

charge of murdering Rohan Pandit on 08.11.2022. Drawing

attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel

submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner and co-

accused Sahil inflicted head injuries upon the deceased whereupon

(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1071] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10920/2024]

he died while undergoing treatment at MG Hospital. However,

during the course of investigation, apart from one mobile phone,

no other material has been recovered by the investigating agency

at the instance of the present petitioner. Learned counsel

submitted that blunt weapon allegedly used in commission of the

alleged crime has been recovered at the instance of co-accused

Sahil.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of

Manish Pandit (PW-01) and Kabir (PW-02) recorded before the

competent criminal Court, learned counsel submitted that though

as per the aforesaid witnesses, the petitioner had inflicted head

injury upon the deceased but the analysis of CCTV footages

attached with the challan papers clearly indicates that these

witnesses have not narrated the correct version of the incident

which occurred on 08.11.2022. Attention of the Court was further

drawn towards the analysis of the CCTV footages recovered by the

investigating agency, learned counsel submitted that CCTV

footages clearly establish that head injuries were inflicted upon

the deceased by co-accused Sahil only.

Learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution is

intentionally delaying the trial against the present petitioner as

despite number of opportunities, the complainant- Rahul Pandit

has not appeared before the competent criminal Court for

recording of his statements. It was contended that keeping the

petitioner in jail for an indefinite period of time to undergo a

prolonged trial violates his fundamental right to liberty under

Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1071] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10920/2024]

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that co-accused persons

namely Kunal Pandit, Himanshu, Siddharth have already been

enlarged on bail; the petitioner is in judicial custody since

10.11.2022 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long

time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-

petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently

opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, the statements of Manish Pandt (PW-

01) and Kabir (PW-02) so also the analysis of the CCTV footages

recovered by the investigating agency, this Court prima facie finds

that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that head

injuries was only inflicted by the co-accused Sahil upon the

deceased with iron rod, cannot be brushed aside at this stage.

This Court also prima facie finds that the blunt weapon (iron rod)

allegedly used for killing the deceased has also been recovered at

the instance of co-accused Sahil only. This Court also prima facie

finds that the second bail application filed on behalf of the

petitioner was rejected by this Court while granting him liberty to

file a fresh bail application after recording the statements of Rahul

Pandit, Manish Pandit and Kabir, however, Rahul Pandit

(complainant) despite being granted numerous opportunities did

not appear before the competent criminal Court for recording of

his statements which prima facie amounts to violating the

fundamental right to liberty of the petitioner under Article 21 of

Constitution of India. This Court also prima facie finds that the

(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:1071] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10920/2024]

prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner

influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses of the cases or

fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus,

without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case,

this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-

petitioner Vikas Chanwariya S/o Shri Suresh Chanwariya

arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.609/2022 registered at Police

Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur, shall be released on bail, if not

wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond

of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the

satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that

court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon

to do so till completion of the trial.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail

application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
194-divya/-

(Downloaded on 08/01/2025 at 09:38:56 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here