Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Sandeep Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18151) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18151]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 16101/2024
Sandeep Singh S/o Shyamanand Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/
o Nepur P.s. Mansur Chawk, Dist Begusarai (Bihar) Presently
Residing At W.No. 27 Pilibanga Tehsil Pilibanga Dist
Hanumangarh.
(Presently Lodged At Dist Jail, Hanumangarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. HSS Kharlia, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Kirti Bohra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surender Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
08/04/2025
This third 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.81/2022, registered at Police Station
Hanumangarh Sadar, District Hanumangarh, for offences under
Sections 302, 201, 376 and 323 of IPC.
The second bail application being S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd
Bail Application No.14057/2023 was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 23.04.2024 while granting liberty to the petitioner to
file a fresh bail application after recording of the statements of
Vijaypal and Dayaram before the competent criminal Court.
The statements of Dayaram and Vijaypal have been recorded
before the competent criminal Court on 16.04.2024 and
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:23:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18151] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16101/2024]
22.08.2024 as PW.7 and PW.9 respectively. Dayaram (PW.7)
during his Court statements has not supported the prosecution
story and has turned hostile.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The
petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Drawing attention of the
Court towards the FIR dated 28.03.2022, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the complainant- Imran Khan submitted
a written report to the SHO of P.S. Sadar, Hanumangarh stating
inter alia that he received a call from one Mustafa at about 03:25
am informing that his father was lying in front of Puran’s Hotel in
an injured condition. Upon receiving aforesaid information, he
alongwith his maternal grandfather (Mohd. Shakud) immediately
reached at Puran’s Hotel and found that his father Iqbal had a
head injury and was bleeding. In the FIR, the complainant
suspected that his father has been killed by unknown persons by
causing him head injury with a brick.
Learned counsel submitted that an FIR was registered
against unknown persons and the petitioner has been roped in a
false criminal case only on the basis of suspicion. Learned counsel
submitted that as per the prosecution, Dayaram (PW.7) was told
by “S” (PW.1) that the deceased Iqbal has been killed by hitting
brick on his head. Since Dayaram during his Court statements has
not supported the prosecution story, the petitioner deserve to be
enlarged on bail. It was further contended that though “S” (PW.1)
during her Court statements has supported the prosecution story
but the same is not beyond the shade of doubt as during the
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:23:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18151] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16101/2024]
cross-examination she has admitted that no Test Identification
Parade (TIP) to identify the petitioner was conducted by the
Investigating Agency.
Learned counsel vehemently and fervently submitted that
there is no evidence available on record indicating motive of the
petitioner to commit the alleged crime. To substantiate this
contention, learned counsel submitted that admittedly, at the time
of the alleged incident, the petitioner was not carrying any sharp/
blunt weapons and the alleged incident appears to have occurred
in heat of the moment. The Learned counsel drew attention of the
Court towards the statements of the Medical Jurist- Dr. Shankar
Lal Soni (PW.3) to contend that a brick cannot be considered as a
sharp weapon.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody 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.
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 and so also the statements of “S”
(PW.1) and Vijaypal (PW.9), this Court prima facie finds that on
the date of alleged incident, the petitioner came in contact with
“S” (PW.1) who is a sex worker through deceased- Iqbal (Balu).
The petitioner after availing the services of “S” PW.1, did not pay
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:23:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18151] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16101/2024]
the amount agreed upon and insisted to continuously avail her
services. When deceased objected to the aforesaid situation, the
petitioner pushed him to the ground and started hitting his head
continuously with a brick lying around. When “S” (PW.1) tried to
intervene and save the deceased, the petitioner also hit her with
the same brick. The petitioner after murdering the deceased
forcibly committed unnatural sexual assault upon the “S” (PW.1).
This Court further prima facie finds that though Vijaypal
(PW.9) is not an eye-witness of the alleged incident but he is an
important material prosecution witness as according to the
prosecution, soon after the incident, he was told about the
deceased being killed by the present petitioner.
The clothes worn by the petitioner containing blood stains
have also been recovered by the Investigating Agency. The FSL
report dated 28.04.2022 indicates that the blood found on the
clothes of the deceased is human blood.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that no
Test Identification Parade to identify the petitioner was conducted
by the Investigating Agency, deserves to be rejected straightaway
for the simple reason that in the present case that the statements
of “S” (PW.1) clearly indicates that that due to the chain of events
which had taken place on the date of alleged incident, she could
clearly identity the petitioner. Thus, in the opinion of this Court,
the absence of Test Identification Parade does not undermine the
prosecution’s story.
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:23:42 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18151] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16101/2024]
This Court, looking to the seriousness of the allegations
levelled against the petitioner and the gravity of the offences, is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the third bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is dismissed.
It is, however, made clear that the observations
made/findings recorded hereinabove are strictly for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application and the trial Court shall
not get prejudiced from the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
266-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 14/04/2025 at 09:23:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)