State Of Rajasthan, Through PP vs For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Adv. Prosecutor. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, Adv. With Kirtivardhan Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Yash Vardhan Singh Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on -::- 08/08/2025 Pronounced on -::- 13/08/2025

1. The present criminal misc. bail application has been preferred under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused- petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.1/2025, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Sadar, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 103(1) and 189(2) of B.N.S.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire story of the prosecution is false and concocted. The facts indicate that at the time of the occurrence, the complainant Rajendra Singh and Revant Singh were not present at the place of [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7373/2025 the occurrence. It is alleged against the petitioner that he along with the other co-accused on 01.01.2025, between 11:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M., assaulted the deceased Gopal Singh, which resulted in his death. A complaint was submitted by Rajendra Singh. It is contended that the incident was reported to the Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu and the rojnamcha of the said Mandawa Police Station dated 03.01.2025 at 00:53 A.M., clearly indicates that the deceased Gopal Singh was found in an injured condition on 02.01.2025 by the Police who was taken to the hospital. The aforesaid fact was mentioned in the rojnamcha 011 prepared on 02.01.2025 at 00:45 A.M., at Police Station Mandawa District Jhujhunu. It is also contended that Gopal Singh died in the SMS Hospital, Jaipur and his relatives were told to lodge the report. Rojnamcha 006 prepared on 03.01.2025, clearly indicates that fact. It is also contended that the inquest report was prepared in the presence of Rajendra Singh and Revant Singh and at that time no report was lodged. It is shown that Revant Singh and Rajendra Singh were not present at the place of occurrence and they intended to implicate the petitioner and other co- accused, lodged an F.I.R. indicating themselves as eye-witnesses. It is also contended that the petitioner was arrested on

04.01.2025 without assigning any reasons, which is required under law and because of provisions of Section 47(1) of B.N.S.S. and erstwhile Section 50(1) of Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Prabir Purkayastha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 (8) SCC 254, has held that mentioning of reasons for arrest in the arrest memo is mandatory. A similar view was taken in the matter of Vihaan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Anr., [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7373/2025 2025 (5) SCC 799 and in the case of Ashish Kakkar Vs. UT of Chandigarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1318. The arrest memo clearly shows that the reasons for the arrest were not conveyed to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner’s arrest and further detention suffer from illegality and the petitioner is entitled to bail on this ground.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. It is contended that the Police after thorough investigation, concluded that the petitioner and the other co-accused Satyendra Singh, Nahar Singh, Jeevraj, Monu and Devdutt assaulted the deceased at 11:15 P.M. with the weapons which resulted in the death of the deceased Gopal Singh. The said incident was captured in the CCTV camera, installed at the house of another co-accused Himmat Singh. The investigation has also revealed that the deceased was taken in the ambulance and before succumbing to death, the deceased gave a dying declaration to the witness Ishwar Singh. It is also contended that Rajendra Singh and Rewant Singh in their statement rendered under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. have clearly stated that they reached the place of occurrence and saw the petitioner and other co-accused running away after beating the deceased Gopal Singh. The CCTV Analysis and the witness to the CCTV Analysis report also indicate the presence of the petitioner and other co-accused. At this stage, there is no reasonable ground for the Court to believe that Rajendra Singh and Revant Singh were not present at the place of occurrence and they have been made eye-witnesses only to implicate the petitioner and other co-accused. Their statements [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7373/2025 are yet to be recorded in the trial court. It is also contended that the petitioner never challenged his arrest at the first inception before the concerned Magistrate and participated in subsequent proceedings and did not utter a word that he was not properly informed about the grounds of arrest. It is also contended that the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner shows his culpability and a grave case, solely on the ground of illegal arrest, the petitioner is not entitled to bail, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves dismissal.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record. The complainant-Rajendra Singh in the FIR has mentioned that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the petitioner and other co-accused running and the deceased was lying with injuries. The presence of Revant Singh has also been stated in the F.I.R. The Police after investigation have concluded that the petitioner and the co-accused were present and gave a beating to the deceased who later died in the hospital. The Investigation Agency has also recorded the statement of witness Ishwar Singh, who in his statement has stated that the deceased on the way to the Hospital, stated to him that the petitioner and other co-accused assaulted him with weapons. The Police have also captured CCTV recording, installed at the house of another co-accused Himmat Singh, in which the presence of the present petitioner and co-accused was found. The important witnesses are yet to be examined, which include eye-witnesses, the witnesses against whom the deceased gave a dying declaration and witnesses to CCTV footage and its analysis and who have [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7373/2025 identified the petitioner and other co-accused in the CCTV footage. The offence against the petitioner is grave.

7. As far as the legality of the petitioner’s arrest is concerned, the petitioner did not raise the objection when he was first forwarded to the concerned Magistrate, even, the petitioner has not separately challenged his arrest. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mihir Rajesh Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. [Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No.17132/2024], has formulated a question whether in every case, even arising out of an offence under IPC, it is mandatory to furnish grounds of arrest to an accused either before arrest or forthwith after arrest and whether the mandate can be asked in exceptional cases, where it would not be possible to provide grounds of arrest either before arrest or immediately after arrest. The questions formulated are still pending in the Apex Court, therefore, considering the facts of the present case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. The bail application of the accused-petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 29