Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mahesh Chand S/O Shri Harikishan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:16204]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14473/2024
Banwari Lal @ Sarpanch S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Paadadi Topkhana, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai
Madhopur (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail Sawai
Madhopur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1316/2025
Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Harikishan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Peeladanda, Police Station Baharawanda Kalan, District Sawai
Madhopur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail- Sawai
Madhopur)
—-Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa
Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP
Mr. Vishnu Bohra, for complainant
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
ORDER
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :- 21/04/2025
1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been
filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in
connection with FIR No.89/2024 registered at Police Station
Bahrawanda Kalan, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences
punishable under Sections 189(2) & 103(1) of BNS. Later on,
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16204] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14473/2024]
police filed charge-sheet in the court concerned for offences
punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners
have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the
petitioners have been entangled in this case due to previous
animosity. It is also submitted that both complainant and the
accused persons are of same community and village. Cross-cases
have also been registered inter se between the parties. Learned
counsel contend that during investigation, the story narrated by
the complainant/first informant – Smt. Panchi has been disbelieved
as during investigation, statement of one witness namely
Sh. Rameshwar Gurjar, whose hut is located near the place of
alleged incident, was recorded in which, he clearly stated that he
did not see 8-10 people at the time of alleged incident near his
hut and he only saw two people there and that, there was no
female, present there at the time of the alleged incident. It is thus
contended by them that the complainant/first informant-Smt.
Panchi is not a reliable witness and she is narrating a false story.
Learned counsel further argue that petitioners were not present at
the place of alleged incident. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet has been filed. Petitioners are in custody since long
and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
3. Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by learned
counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail applications.
It is submitted that according to the charge-sheet submitted by
the Investigating Agency, the accused persons hatched a
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:07 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:16204] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14473/2024]
conspiracy and committed the crime. It is also submitted that the
accused persons were having enmity with the complainant side
and under personal vengenance, they murdered Radhamohan and
Hargovind in a very planned manner. It is also submitted that
during investigation, offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a)
of BNS have already been found proved against the petitioners.
The accused persons were in contact with each other through
mobile phone at the time of commission of crime. They actively
participated in the commission of crime. They thus, submit that
looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations
attributed to the accused-petitioners, they do not deserve the
indulgence of bail.
4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as
also considering the material made available before me including
charge-sheet; as also looking to the gravity of offence; nature of
allegations and manner of commission of crime, I do not find it a
fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. In the case at hand, two
persons Radhamohan and Hargovind have lost their lives. Thus,
looking to gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend
indulgence of bail to the accused petitioners.
5. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. However,
observation made herein does not prejudice trial in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /373-374
(Downloaded on 22/04/2025 at 10:26:07 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link