Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhuttaram Bishnoi @ Bhupendra vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12957) on 7 March, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:12957]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 450/2025
Bhuttaram Bishnoi @ Bhupendra S/o Shri Bhanwararam, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Aathuni Dhani , Joliyali, P.s. Jhanwar, Dist
Jodhpur . (Presently Confined In Central Jail , Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
Mr. Ram Prakash Dudy
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG
Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
07/03/2025
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Rayla Dist. Bhilwara,
for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 307,
420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 411 and 302/120-B, 34, 201, 202, 212,
225 of IPC; Sections 3, 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act; Sections 8/15, 8/27 and 8/29 of NDPS Act; and
Sections 3/25, 35, 25(6), 28 and 5/27 of Arms Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the FIR, challan papers and the
other documents available on record, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:30:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12957] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-450/2025]
present case solely on the basis of disclosure statements of co-
accused Ramesh recorded while he was in judicial custody.
Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the
present petitioner is of transferring money to the co-accused
persons through hawala with the help of one Anil Jangwani.
Learned counsel submitted that neither the petitioner has been
named in the FIR nor was he present with the co-accused persons
at the place of incident. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had no
knowledge or information about the transportation of contraband
on the date of the alleged incident.
Learned counsel further contended that the co-accused Anil
Jangwani has already been enlarged on bail by the competent
criminal Court. Other co-accused persons namely Pushpendra
Singh (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application
No.2249/2023), Prakash (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.12476/2023) and Sunil Dudi (S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.9266/2023) have already
been enlarged on bail by this Court as well as by the co-ordinate
Benches of this Court vide orders dated 08.05.2023, 20.05.2024
and 18.08.2023 respectively.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 01.05.2024; investigation against the
petitioner has already been completed; challan against him has
already been filed; final conclusion of the trial of the case will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted
to the accused-petitioner.
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:30:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12957] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-450/2025]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application. Learned counsel contended that the
petitioner has been arraigned on the basis of information supplied
by co-accused under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act and he was
regularly providing financial support to the co-accused persons
and, therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations
against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged
on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that
the above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged
on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case particularly the fact that the above
named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Bhuttaram
Bishnoi @ Bhupendra S/o Shri Bhanwararam arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.55/2021 registered at Police Station
Rayla Dist. Bhilwara, 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.
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:30:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12957] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-450/2025]
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
63-divya/-
(Downloaded on 07/03/2025 at 11:30:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)