State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. Radhe S/o Chhinga, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Kar

Judgment

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Versus Radhe S/o Chhinga, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Raj) Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15549/2023 Ajit Kumar S/o Govinda, R/o Domai, Police Station Sarmathura, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.). (Presently Confined In District Jail, Karauli (Raj.)

2. ----Petitioner State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Versus Radhe S/o Chhinga, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Raj.).

3. Batti Lal S/o Chhinga, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura, Tan Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7261/2024 Sonu S/o Late Lakhan Singh, R/o Bhoore Ka Pura Thana Langra District Karauli Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At District Jail Karauli). State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp Versus ----Petitioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP Ms. Mamta Agarwal and [2025:RJ-JP:13645] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13586/2023] Mr. Pankaj Solanki for Mr. Arvind Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 06/03/2025 Order

1. These bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.73/2023 registered at Police Station Langra District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 143 & 302 of IPC. Later on, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 364 & 120B of IPC. Presently, the trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.06.2023, complainant Radhey submitted a written report inter alia alleging that at around 12.00 PM, Rinku, Saurav and 2-3 other persons of his village took away his nephew Asharam and thereafter, Badam and Naine @ Lalpati and his family members brutally gave beatings to Asharam and left him outside the house of Jaganlal. Asharam was brutally beaten by these persons. Badam, Naine and Bidha took out his nails from pliers and burnt his face. On the basis of this report, FIR No.743/2023 came to be registered at Police Station Langra District Karauli for offences under Sections 147, 302, 364 and 120B IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet in the court concerned and presently, trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence. [2025:RJ-JP:13645] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13586/2023] The petitioners are arrested in connection with the present FIR. Hence, these bail applications.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Arguing the bail application of accused petitioner Lalpati @ Naine, learned counsel Shri Rajneesh Gupta contends that no evidence has come on record suggesting that the petitioner inflicted any injury to the deceased. He has been made accused in this case with the aid of Section 120B IPC. However, the investigating agency has failed to collect any sort of evidence of conspiracy in between the petitioner and other accused persons. As a matter of fact, the deceased used to harass the daughter of the petitioner which, he objected and in order to implicate whole of the family, he has been implicated in this case. Learned counsel representing the accused petitioners Ajit Kumar and Sonu contend that both accused petitioners are not named in the FIR. They are falsely been roped without any basis in this case. Test identification parade of the accused petitioner Ajit Kumar was not done whereas no recovery has been effected from the accused Sonu. They argue that all these three accused petitioners are in custody since long whereas trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused persons behind the bars for an indefinite time period.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. There are serious allegations against the accused persons that they hatched a conspiracy and brutally murdered the deceased. It is argued that [2025:RJ-JP:13645] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13586/2023] during investigation, it has come out that the deceased Asharam used to stalk younger daughter of Lalpati @ Naine with which, he was not happy as it was tarnishing their reputation. He told his son Rinku Meena to teach him lesson. Accused Rinku Meena contacted his friend Ajeet and told him the incident. The accused persons Lalpati, Ajeet, Rinku, Sonu and Pushpendra hatched a conspiracy, in which, accused Rinku and Ajit abducted Asharam on their motorcycle from his village Bhurekapura and took him to Pushpendra and Sonu Meena, who were waiting near Bypass Pulia road. He was brutally beaten by them. Thereafter, accused Rinku Meena and Ajit took the deceased to Savidi jungle while leaving behind accused Pushpendra and Sonu Meena for monitoring and informing them in case, anybody went towards the jungle. The deceased was brutally beaten by the accused Rinku and Ajit with stick and belt. During this incident, Badam and Lalpat @ Nene came there and found the deceased in injured condition. He along with Badam took the deceased from the place of incident and left him outside the house of Jaganlal Meena.

5. They contend that the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case. It is also argued that mobile locations of the accused petitioners and the deceased was also matching at the relevant time. The motive behind murder of the deceased is also very clear. The deceased was brutally beaten by the accused persons. As per the opinion of the medical board who conducted postmortem on the dead body, the cause of death is neurogenic and haemorngic shock due to multiple blunt trauma caused by blunt object. They thus, prays that looking to the role attributed to [2025:RJ-JP:13645] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13586/2023] the accused petitioners in commission of the alleged crime, these bail applications may be dismissed.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also the material made available before me in the form of charge sheet; the court testimony of the prosecution witnesses so far examined; allegations attributed to them and their seriousness and the manner in which, the alleged crime has been committed, I am not inclined to accept these bail applications.

8. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /423-425 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J