State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p v. Connected

: Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila Ms. Vaishnavi Mr. Gaurav Thakran Ms. Ayushi Thakran Ms. Monalisa Mohapatra : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Asad Al Haq Norri Mr. Fahad Hasan Mr. Aquif Khan Mr. Abdul Basit Naqvi for complainant Mr. Ramnaresh Meena SI, SHO PS Maniya District Dholpur Mr. Santosh Sharma, SI SHO Aangai Dholpur Mr. Viay Singh CI Kotwali, Deeg [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 31/01/2025 Order

1. These two bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the accused petitioners herein who are in custody in connection with FIR No.24/2023 Police Station Gopalgarh District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 143, 365, 367, 368 IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 365, 367, 368, 302, 201, 120B, 147, 364, 149, 148 & 435 IPC has been filed in the court concerned.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2023, first informant Ismile submitted a report at Police Station Gopalgarh inter alia alleging that on 15.02.2023 at about 5 O Clock in the morning, his cousin Juned S/o Harun and Nasir S/o Gani had gone in their Bolero Vehicle (No.HR 28E 7763) for their personal work. On that day, he went to Firozpur Jhirka for purchasing. At about 9:00 AM, he was told by a stranger on a tea stall that two persons who were going in a bolero vehicle through Gopalgarh forest, were brutally beaten by 8-10 persons and both were taken by the assailants in the Bolero. On receiving such information, he immediately made a call on their mobile phones. However, their mobiles were found switched of. Thereafter, he informed his relatives at Village Ghatmika about this incident. They came Firozpur whereafter, they reached to the place of incident where they met some persons, who told them that two persons were brutally beaten by 8-10 persons and both were taken away by those persons in the Bolero vehicle. On asking, they disclosed their names as Anil, Srikant, [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] Rinku Saini, Lokesh Singla and Monu etc of Bajrang Dal. On the basis of this report, police registered FIR No.24/23 Police Station Gopalgarh for offences under Sections 143, 365, 367, 368 IPC. During investigation, police arrested accused petitioners herein. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet in the court concerned for offences punishable under Sections 365, 367, 368, 302, 201, 120B, 147, 364, 149, 148 & 435 IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submit that the accused petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Both are totally innocent and has nothing to do with the alleged incident. It is contended that the accused petitioners have been roped in this case after due deliberations, consultations and afterthought due to social media posts of petitioner Mohit @ Monu Manesar. The informant did not mention the names of the persons in the FIR, who met him at the place of alleged incident and gave alleged information to him that is to say the complainant has not disclosed the name of person who disclosed him names of assailants. It is also contended that the relatives who accompanied the first informant to the place of incident, have not named the petitioners in their police statements. Identification parade of the accused petitioners have also not been conducted. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet in the matter whereas trial will take long time in its conclusion. The deceased Juned was himself a habitual offender and due to his bad conduct, many persons were having enmity with him. It is submitted that Haryana Police takes assistance of association/groups of Cow Protectors in apprehending accused persons who are involved in such offences and the petitioners are [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] also members of such groups. The petitioners Anil Kumar and Mohit @ Monu are in custody since 12.09.2023 and 07.10.2023 respectively. Investigation has been completed in the matter and trial will take time in its conclusion. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite time period.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the bail applications. It is submitted that the petitioners have been named in the FIR. In the charge sheet, specific role has been attributed to these accused persons. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the accused petitioners were trying to extort money from the deceased and for this purpose, the deceased Juned was threatened by co-accused Rinku Saini to meet Monu Manesar, petitioner herein and to give so-called commission, which in fact was extortion money. It is also submitted that whatsApp chats as well as call details of the accused persons, collected during the course of investigation, clearly reflect that the accused persons hatched a conspiracy and thereafter, they brutally murdered deceased persons. The accused petitioners were in continuous touch with co-accused persons through whatsapp. Prior to incident, information of the belero vehicle of the deceased was shared by accused Rinku Saini to the accused petitioner Monu @ Manesar. CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation also shows involvement of the accused petitioners Anil and Mohit @ Monu Manesar in the commission of crime. [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024]

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that both accused petitioners are indulged in spreading hate speeches, in which, they clearly gave threatening of killing persons, involved in cow slaughtering. WhatsApp Groups have also been made by the accused persons in which, messages including hate speeches are being forwarded. It is thus, submitted that looking to the seriousness of allegations and gravity of offences, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record.

7. From the material available on record, prima facie, it appears that the alleged incident would be the outcome of religious hatred and fanaticism as during investigation, it has come out that the accused persons used to spread hate speeches and videos through social media in the name of cow-protection. Thus, before proceeding to decide these two bail applications, this Court expresses his concern towards the religious violence; religious hatred and fanaticism. Religion is a relationship between a human being and God but there is no greater danger to the meaning of religion than when it is made use of as a weapon. When it takes this turn and becomes militant, it loses the right to be called religion. Fanaticism of this selective kind, targeting a particular community has not been confined to India. It took place in several countries and particular communities were targeted. Religious madness or religious violence cannot be accepted at any cost in any civilized society. This type of religious violence or religious madness needs to be dealt with strictly and the criminal court must deal with such cases strictly. [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024]

8. Recent times have seen an incremental rise in religious tensions across the country. There have been multifarious activities which cause tensions in between several communities. Such activities involve delivery of hate speeches, incitement of violence against a group and many other provoking acts. Such acts lead to even more serious and heinous activities like that of violent crimes.

9. Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita specifically deprecates all kinds of hate speeches which promote enmity or conflict between groups on the basis of race, religion, language or community. Further, it also punishes activities that harm public peace or incite people to use violence against other people. Many incidents in the recent past have seen public at large getting provoked by such ideas of religious hatred and religious fanaticism. Religious hatred and fanaticism have no place in a civilized society that values peace, harmony, and the rule of law. Crimes committed due to religious hatred are not just attacks on individuals but also on the principles of humanity and coexistence. No justification, ideological or otherwise, can excuse such acts, and they must be condemned and punished with the full force of the law.

10. Acts which are committed in the name of religious hatred and fanaticism should be dealt by the courts in the strictest manner as they have a disastrous effect on the society at large, thereby making the role of the judiciary even more important. The courts have been given power/duty to punish such actions according to the law and the courts should fulfill this duty efficaciously. It is the duty of the courts to take strict action [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] against offenders who commit crimes driven by religious hatred and fanaticism. The judiciary serves as the guardian of justice, ensuring that such acts do not go unpunished and that the rule of law prevails over intolerance and violence. By holding perpetrators accountable, courts deter future offenses and reinforce the principles of equality, secularism, and communal harmony. Swift and fair legal action not only provides justice to victims but also upholds the trust of society in the judicial system, ensuring that no individual or group is above the law when it comes to crimes fuelled by hatred. Thus, it is the need of the hour for the courts to efficaciously perform their functions to deal with such offences strictly and promptly.

11. The courts however need the executive to perform its functions effectively as well. The Supreme Court in the case of Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India, (2014) 11 SCC 477, held that “The root of the problem is not the absence of laws but rather a lack of their effective execution. Therefore, the executive as well as civil society has to perform its role in enforcing the already existing legal regime. Effective regulation of “hate speeches” at all levels is required as the authors of such speeches can be booked under the existing penal law and all the law enforcing agencies must ensure that the existing law is not rendered a dead letter. Enforcement of the aforesaid provisions is required being in consonance with the proposition salus reipublicae suprema lex (safety of the State is the supreme law).”

12. In the instant case, it has been alleged that the accused persons including the petitioners herein hatched a conspiracy and [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] abducted two persons Nasir and Juned along with their vehicle. Both were brutally beaten up and murdered by the accused persons. Thereafter, the accused persons set the bolero on fire along with the deceased Nasir and Juned. Thus, there involves a very serious offence in the instant case, in which, two persons have been brutally murdered. Thorough investigation has been conducted in this case which prima facie establishes nexus of the accused persons in commission of the crime.

13. As per the charge-sheet, specific roles have been assigned to the accused petitioners. It has come out during investigation that on 05.02.2023, WhatsApp chats were exchanged between accused petitioner Monu Manesar and accused Rinku Saini regarding Bolero Vehicle (No.HR 28 6377) of the deceased Juned and Nasir. Further, as per record, on the date of alleged incident i.e., 15.02.2023, there has been nine WhatsApp calls made between both accused Monu Manesar and Rinku Saini and on

16.02.2023, the accused petitioner Monu Manesar sent an audio message to the accused Rinku Saini asking him to switch of his mobile as FIR has been registered by specifically naming the accused persons. Thus, the WhatsApp chats as well as call details of the accused persons, collected during the course of investigation prima facie indicate that the accused persons were in contact with each other and were involved in commission of the crime. In the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation, the accused petitioner Anil Kumar is visible along with other accused persons, participating in commission of crime. Three cases have already been registered against the accused [2025:RJ-JP:11061] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-1900/2024] petitioner Monu Manesar whereas one case under Arms Act has been registered against the petitioner Anil Kumar.

14. Thus, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both sides as also material made available before me including charge sheet and looking to the gravity of offences and seriousness of allegations that two persons were set on fire along with their bolero vehicle, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, both bail applications are dismissed.

15. The observation made herein is only for decision of these bail applications and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733