Sagarmal Son Of Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 January, 2025

January 23, 2025

183

Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur

Sagarmal Son Of Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 January, 2025

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2025:RJ-JP:2349]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3152/2024

1.       Sagarmal Son Of Teja Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
         Resident Of Dhani Nayakuwan Bhagega Police Station
         Neem Aka Thana Dist Sikar
2.       Rajendra @ Mukesh Son Of Rohitashav, Aged About 31
         Years, Resident Of Dhani Samota Wali Panchayat Sirohi
         Neem Ka Thana Thana Kotwali Distt. Sikar
3.       Mukesh Son Of Tejpal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of
         Nayabas Kundali Thana Bansur Distt. Alwar
4.       Narendra Son Of Richpal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
         Of    Matwa     Ki    Dhnai,       Bay      Thana         Nawalgarh    Distt.
         Jhunjhunu
5.       Ankit @ Sagar Son Of Gajraj, Aged About 21 Years,
         Resident Of Gopi Thana Sihaniya Distt. Murena Madhya
         Pradesh
6.       Mohan Singh @ Katappa Son Of Bhagwan Singh, Aged
         About 22 Years, Resident Of Kidwana Thana Surajgarh,
         Distt. Jhunjhunu
                                                                      ----Appellants
                                      Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Pintu Meena S/o Sh. Pappu Lal Meena, R/o Village Arniya
         Kankad Peeplu Tonk (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Respondents

Connected With
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3153/2024

1. Suresh Kumar Son Of Girdhari Lal, Aged About 33 Years,
Resident Of Dhani Baniyala Village Panchayat Mahawa
Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar Distt Sikar
(Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)

2. Ravindra Singh @ Pappu Son Of Amar Singh, Aged About
37 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Nayasar, Police
Station Sadar Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
(Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)

3. Satveer Singh Son Of Kishore Singh, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Bhadwasi Deepmala, Johda Police

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (2 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

Station Dadiya Distt. Sikar (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are
Confined At District Jail Tonk)

4. Rakesh Kumar @ Shera Son Of Kamal Kumar, Aged About
32 Years, Resident Of Dhani Nawedi Panchayat Dehara
Johadi Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Sadar Diss Sikar
(Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)

5. Mahendra Singh Son Of Om Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Turkiyawas, Police Station Jobner, Distt.
Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District
Jail Tonk)

—-Appellants
Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2. Pintu Meena S/o Sh. Pappu Lal Meena, R/o Arniya Kankad
Peeplu Tonk (Rajasthan)

—-Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat
Mr. David Mehla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
Mr. BN Sandu
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav
Ms. Anisha Yadav

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

Reserved on: 16/01/2025

Pronounced on: 22/01/2025

1. The instant criminal appeals are filed under Section

14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act of 1989”) on behalf of

the appellants, who are in custody in relation to FIR No.168/2023

registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offence

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (3 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

under Sections 143, 302, 201 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v)(VA) of

the Act of 1989).

2. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that

as per the records, it can be noted that the alleged incident

occurred on 27th June, 2023 and an FIR against the was lodged

belatedly on 30th June, 2023 by brother of the deceased, stating

that a group of persons who were employees of sand smugglers,

have attacked and caused brutal injuries upon the deceased.

3. Learned counsel had further submitted that it is

revealed from the medical report that as many as 14 injuries were

sustained by the deceased, out of which, 11 were simple in nature

and one was fatal/grievous/life threatening in nature. It is further

averred that at present, qua certain alleged persons, proceedings

under the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are initiated and

qua some of the accused-persons charge sheet is not filed and

investigation is ongoing, as per the factual report.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants had prayed that the

present appeals may be allowed whislt enlarging the appellants on

bail, on the ground that the Apex Court has granted the benefit of

bail vide order dated 21st October, 2024 passed in Abhishek &

Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Petition(s) for Special

Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11876/2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants had urged and

pleaded the Court to follow the principle of parity and contended

as follows:

5.1 That FIR was made to be registered after two days of

the alleged incident.

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)

[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (4 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

5.2 That no specific role is assigned to the appellants nor

any allegations are made directly against the appellants.

5.3 That all the appellants are the sole bread-earners of

their families and are aged in between 20 and 40 years.

6. It was further submitted that there are zilch criminal

antecedents registered against the appellants except a few of the

appellants namely Rakesh Kumar, Sagar Mal and Ankit.

7. Consecutively, it was submitted that being aggrieved by

the dismissal of the bail application, the co-accused appellants

preferred a SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court registered as

Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Petition(s) for

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.15963/2023, and SLP

(Cr.) No. 16030/2023 which were dismissed vide order dated

14.12.2023 (Annexure – 4). Nonetheless, the same is not

applicable to the present facts of the application, as the same was

dismissed after filing of charge sheet.

8. Subsequently, it was submitted that statement of PW –

3 – Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Medical Officer) had not supported the

story of the prosecution and depicts that the cause of death was

not the injuries sustained by the deceased.

9. In support of the contentions made insofar learned

counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon the ratio

encapsulated in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh & Ors. Vs.

State of Gujarat reported in 2009 (2) ACR 1232 (SC) and

Khet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan registered as SB

Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application no.861/2021;

10. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid ratio, it was

contended that if one of the co-accused is granted the benefit of

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (5 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

bail then the other co-accused are also entitled for the benefit of

bail, as per the principle of parity. Moreover, the tenure of custody

shall also be a relevant ground for consideration of the bail

application.

11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, have vehemently

opposed the instant appeal and have made manifold submissions,

inter alia others a few of which are noted herein below:

11.1 That precisely it is noted in the said FIR that resultant

to the brutal injuries inflicted by the group of ‘bajri mafias’, the

death of a young man occurred. The deceased belonged to an

underprivileged community (SC/ST Category) and was the sole-

earner for the dependents.

11.2 That delay in lodging the said FIR was due to the fact

that the appellants are highly affluent and the said FIR was only

made to be registered upon intervention of MLAs/political leaders

and the protest made by the general public.

11.3 That a brutal murder was executed on account of the

malice intentions of the accused-appellants wherein as many as

14 injuries of serious and simple nature were inflicted upon the

deceased, with intention of committing murder. The said fact is

also substantiated by the Medical Report.

11.4 That Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Medical Officer) (PW – 3) is

only one of the members of the Medical Board and the Medical

Report itself has not ruled out the injuries causing vomit and

hindrance/blockage in/of the esophagus.

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (6 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

11.5 That the investigation is moving at a steady pace and

the proceedings under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are initiated for

justified reasons.

12. That the ratio of Abhishek & Anr. (supra) relied upon

by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable in the

prevailing facts and circumstances, for the reasons stated herein

below:-

12.1 That the principle of parity and judicial discipline, was

also not considered/granted by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case

of co-accused Rakesh Kumar (supra) (Annexure – 4).

12.2 The criminal antecedents, qua the appellants, were not

brought on record and hence were not considered.

12.3 That the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the

order passed by the High Court, was passed in appeal, whereas at

Page – 53 (Annexure-5), reflects that orders were passed while

exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and

Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a detailed reason and not under the bail

proceedings.

13. It was further contended that there is an ongoing

threat by the persons against whom investigation is pending under

the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and all the appellants

belong to Jhujhunu, Alwar and Shekhawati belt whereas the

incident took place in Malpura District.

14. Lastly, it was argued that criminal antecedents of

heinous offences/nature are reflected against the accused/co-

accused namely Sagarmal, Ankit, Mohan Singh and Rakesh Kumar

moreover, the other appellants are in acquaintance with them.

Nevertheless, the accused persons noted herein are engaged in

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (7 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

illegal activities/ actions of siphoning of sand/Bajri; are acting as

sand mafias and are a threat to the safety of the deceased’s

family/complainant. Upon enlarging the appellants on bail, there

will be a plausibility of tampering with evidences and threatening

of witnesses and complainant. Nevertheless, considering the

socio-economical background of the complainant and the

deceased this Court has a duty to safeguard their rights and

protect their lives from all means of danger.

13. Heard and considered the rival arguments advanced by

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, scanned

through the voluminous record furnished before the Court and

perused through the judgments cited at the Bar.

14. At the outset, prior to penning down the observations

on the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties

this Court deems it absolutely essential to take note of the most

germane facts of consideration for adjudication of a bail

appeal/application. It is settled position of law that for efficacious

adjudication of any bail application/appeal a Court has to consider

material factors like the history/ record of criminal antecedents

registered against the accused-appellant, age, sex, character,

conduct, role in the alleged offence, impact on the society, nature

and gravity of charges, severity of punishment on being convicted,

likelihood of offence being rehearsed etc.

15. Therefore, upon a cumulative analysis of the

aforementioned factors this Court is of a primary view that a

number of criminal antecedents are registered against the accused

appellants, which create a prima facie impediment for this Court

to formulate a clear opinion qua the history and character of the

(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (8 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024]

appellants. For the sake of convenience and handiness, the

records of criminal antecedents registered against the appellants

is reproduced herein below:

01- Jh lkxj ey rSrjoky iq= Jh rstkjke rSrjoky tkfr tkV mez 29 o’kZ
fuoklh <k.kh u;kdqvka Hkxsxk Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk lnj ftyk lhdj

dzz-la ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk
1- 2 3 4 5
414@22 147]149]323]341]4 lnj Vksad pktZ”khV 296@12
1 4-12-2022 27 fnukad 30-12-22
Hkknl-

2- 230@19 379 Hkknl- Ekakxfy;kokl pktZ”khV 219@22
13-11-19 ¼vtesj½ fnukad 12-12-22
3- 227@20 147]148]149]323]3 uhe dk Fkkuk lnj pktZ”khV 153@20
06-07-20 07 ¼lhdj½ fnukad 09-09-20
Hkknl-

02-Jh lqjs”k dqekj xqtZj iq= Jh fxj/kkjh yky xqtZj tkfr xqtZj mez 33 o’kZ
fuoklh <k.kh ckfu;kyk xzke iapk;r egkok Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk lnj ftyk
lhdj