State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. Connected

: Mr. Yogesh Singhal Mr. Manish K. Gupta Mr. T.L. Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, AGA with Mr. Aman Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing) Order 13/02/2025

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case

1. FIR Number

2. Concerned Police Station Kotwali

3. District Bharatpur [2025:RJ-JP:6480] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025]

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302 & 120B of IPC and Section 3/25 (6) of the Arms Act

5. Offences added, if any --

6. Date of passing of impugned CRLMB (In No.661/2025)

7. Date of passing of impugned CRLMB (In No.1795/2025)

19.12.2024

07.11.2021

2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based on conjectures and surmises.

3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

4. I Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record as well as gone through the niceties of the matter.

5. A detailed observation has been made by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Surendra Kumar @ Montu and Narendra vide order dated 05.07.2023 and for ready reference, the same judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the similarly situated co- [2025:RJ-JP:6480] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025] accused Dilawar S/o Shri Knachan Sharma has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated

03.10.2023 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No.13181/2023. The relevant para Nos.2 to 5 of the said bail application is reproduced herein below: “2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since long. The police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet. During trial, statement of eye witnesses PW1-Chandrawati @ Khiliya, PW2-Reena Kumari and PW3-Neelam have been recorded in which they have clearly stated that co-accused Lakhan had caused the firearm injury to both deceased persons Surendra Singh and Sachin. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that postmortem report reveals that single fire arm injury in the nature of wound of entry and exit was noticed by the doctor. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that similarly situated co- accused Kumrendra Singh and Lala @ Prashant Tiwari have been enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

26.09.2023 and conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the 3rd bail application.

4. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Accordingly, the 3rd bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered [2025:RJ-JP:6480] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025] that the accused-petitioner Dilawar S/o Shri Kanchan Sharma be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he will appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.”

5. In view of the above, the factual position of the allegation levelled against the petitioner is the same rather better than the co-accused Dilawar and on the ground that the trial would still take a long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioners does not find mentioning in the FIR. The fact revealing that it was co- accused Lakhan who opened the gunshot as a consequence of which deceased succumbed to injuries. No other tegged or implication has been alleged against these two petitioners. Their cases are identical to the case of co-accused Surendra Kumar, Narendra and Dilawar, and therefore, on the ground of parity they too deserve to be enlarged on bail. There is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude. In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the present matter.

7. Accordingly, the instant bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused- petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to [2025:RJ-JP:6480] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-661/2025] the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J Samvedana/29-30.