Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shaitan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:3436]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15464/2023
Shaitan Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Rupawas, P.s. Shivpura, Dist. Pali. (Presently Lodged At Sub Jail,
Sojat)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sadul Singh S/o Shri Bheem Singh, R/o Gram Rupawas,
Tehsil Sojat, P.s. Shivpura, Dist. Pali.
3. Mansi Kanwar W/o Late Shri Kuldeep Singh, R/o Gram
Rupawas, Tehsil Sojat, P.s. Shivpura, Dist. Pali.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
Mr. Dilip Singh Udawat with
Mr. Chandan Singh Jodha for
complainant
Mr. Kapoora Ram Choudhary, P.S.
Sojat City, Pali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/01/2025
1. 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.43/2023 registered at Police Station Sojat City, District
Pali for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 364, 302 and 120-B
of IPC.
2. As per the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner
is that he owing to some previous animosity with the deceased-
Kuldeep Singh hatched a conspiracy with the co-accused persons
namely Nathu Singh, Bhawani Singh and Suresh Singh to commit
the murder of the deceased- Kuldeep Singh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3436] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-15464/2023]
counsel submitted that the petitioner, had conducted recce’ of the
deceased, only upon the directions of co-accused – Nathu Singh
and acting upon the information furnished by the petitioner, the
co-accused persons on the date of the alleged incident had
mercilessly beaten the deceased- Kuldeep Singh who succumbed
to the injuries on the spot.
4. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner has
been implicated in the present case merely on the basis of
conjunctures and surmises, without there being any material
available on record so as to link the petitioner with the alleged
crime. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record
to suggest that the petitioner has conducted the recce’ of the
deceased- Kuldeep Singh with the same intentions as that of the
co-accused persons.
5. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution
solely rests upon the statements of Chakrapani Singh (PW-03)
who is a close relative of the deceased and is not an independent
witness of the case; and apart from his statements, there is no
direct evidence available on record indicating involvement of the
present petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.
6. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody; challan against him has already been filed; no
recoveries are due to be made from him; and the trial of the case
will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may
be granted to the accused-petitioner.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3436] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-15464/2023]
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the
statements of Chakrapani Singh (PW-03) and the material
collected by the investigating agency in the form of call locations
of the petitioner as well as the deceased- Kuldeep Singh, and the
calls exchanged between the petitioner and Chakrapani Singh
(PW-03) clearly go to fortify the fact that the petitioner on several
occasions had told him (PW-03) that he would teach the
deceased- Kuldeep Singh a lesson by killing him.
8. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner while
conducting recce’ of the deceased- Kuldeep Singh, used to collect
all the information regarding the daily activities and locations/
movement of the deceased from the witnesses- Mukesh (PW-08),
Lalit (PW-06) and Nandlal (PW-07) and thereafter, was furnishing
the same to the co-accused Bhawani Singh, Nathu Singh, etc.
Learned counsel submitted that in the present case, incriminating
evidences such as cell phone calls/ call locations and statements
of PW-03 are present on record, sufficiently pointing towards the
complicity of the present petitioner and therefore, looking to the
nature/ strength of the evidence collected by the investigating
agency, the present bail application deserves to be rejected by this
Court.
9. In rebuttal, drawing attention of the Court towards the
statements of Mukesh (PW-08), learned counsel submitted that
Mukesh (PW-08), during his Court statements has not supported
the prosecution story and has turned hostile. Learned counsel
submitted that it is a settled law that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven guilty and therefore, in the present case,
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3436] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-15464/2023]
since the statements of the material prosecution witnesses viz.
Mukesh (PW-08), Chakrapani Singh (PW-03) etc., have already
been recorded before the competent criminal Court, now no
fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind
the bars for an indefinite period.
10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
11. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 19.01.2023. This Court
further prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, on
15.01.2023, at about 09:20 p.m., when the deceased- Kuldeep
Singh in his car bearing registration No.RJ22-CC-5999 reached
near the house of Ex-Minister Laxmi Narayan Dave, 10-12 persons
heavily armed with iron rods and pipes came in two vehicles
(Maruti Swift Car and Scorpio), and hit the car of the deceased-
Kuldeep Singh with an intention to kill him. The accused persons
thereafter kidnapped him and fled from the scene towards Mod
Bhata. The police party during the course of investigation,
recovered the dead body of deceased- Kuldeep Singh lying near
the Nimbor Factory. On a close scrutiny of case file, this Court
further prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, co-accused
persons namely Nathu Singh, Bhawani Singh and Suresh Singh
are the principal accused of the case as they got the murder of the
deceased- Kuldeep Singh committed through co-accused
Bhupendra Singh, Ladu Singh @ Lakhan Pratap, Dhanna Ram,
Ram Niwas, Bhawani Singh, Jagdish Ram, Dinesh Bhati, Babu
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3436] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-15464/2023]
Khan, Shiv Singh, Teja Ram, etc. The weapons, vehicles/ mobile
phones, etc. so used in the commission of the alleged crime, have
also been recovered at the instance of these accused persons.
12. This Court further prima facie finds that the statements of
the various witnesses including Smt. Deepika and Ms. Krishna
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicate that when Smt.
Deepika and Ms. Krishna got to know that co-accused Bhawani
Singh and Nathu Singh were running a sex racket at Ahmedabad,
the deceased- Kuldeep Singh not only provided them with shelter
but was also supporting their actions against them. Co-accused
persons namely Nathu Singh, Bhawani Singh and Suresh Singh
thus prima facie had a motive to commit the alleged crime.
13. As far as the present petitioner is concerned, though as per
the prosecution, the petitioner was keeping animosity with the
deceased- Kuldeep Singh and wanted to teach him a lesson but no
specific evidence regarding motive for him to have killed the
deceased is available on record. This Court further prima facie
finds that apart from the witness Chakrapani Singh (PW-03), who
is close relative of deceased- Kuldeep Singh, all the other material
prosecution witnesses against the present petitioner, who had
allegedly supplied him information regarding the daily routine and
movements of the deceased- Kuldeep Singh viz. Mukesh (PW-08),
Lalit (PW-06) and Nandlal (PW-07), during their Court statements
have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile.
It is also to be noticed that neither the petitioner has been named
in the FIR nor his presence at the place of incident has been
established by the prosecution. This Court further prima facie finds
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:3436] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-15464/2023]
that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner
influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses of the case or
fleeing away from justice or tampering with the evidence, in case
he is enlarged on bail by this Court.
14. In the opinion of this Court, a detailed exploration of
evidence so as to establish the charges of conspiracy against the
petitioner is inadvisable at the stage of grant of bail to the
petitioner, as the same may affect the trial against petitioner and
the co-accused persons. Thus, without expressing any opinion on
merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
15. Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shaitan
Singh S/o Shri Dalpat Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.43/2023 registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali
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.
16. 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
214-divya/-
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 09:55:30 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link