State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor v. Connected

Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o Shri Prabhudayal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Aamli Ki Dhani Tan Morija, Police Station Samod, District Jaipur. (Presently In District / Central Jail At Jaipur). State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Versus ----Petitioner ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7381/2025 Aman Meena S/o Ramgopal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Dhola Ka Bas, Police Station Kaladera District Jaipur At Present Meena Mohalla, Near Railway Station, Chomu Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Versus ----Petitioner ----Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8010/2025 Mukesh Kumar Mandiya S/o Sh. Ghisalal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 08, Khantudara, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar, At Present R/o Ward No. 04, Dera Ram Sagar, Near Power House, Shrimadhopur, Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Versus ----Petitioner ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : In CRLMB No.4186/2025 – Mr. Kailash Chand Katara. In CRLMB No.6517/2025 – Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Mr. Pushpendra Kumar & Ms. Shruti Singh. In CRLMB No.6941/2025 – Mr. Atul Sharma. In CRLMB No.7006/2025 – Mr. Mahendra Shandilya. In CRLMB No.7381/2025 – Ms. Pinki Jangir. In CRLMB No.8010/2025 – Mr. Anish Bhadala for Mr. Dinesh Choudhary. For Complainant : Mr. Chandi Charan Ratnu. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 08/08/2025 Order

1. These Bail Applications were preferred by petitioners- accused (i) Sohanlal Alias Sona S/o Shri Sharwan Lal; (ii) Rahul Lamba S/o Shri Sanwarmal; (iii) Azaad Meena S/o Sh. Birju Meena; (iv) Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o Shri Prabhudayal; (v) Aman Meena S/o Ramgopal and (vi) Mukesh Kumar Mandiya S/o Sh. Ghisalal, in a matter arising out of FIR No. 46/2025 dated 25.01.2025, registered [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] at Police Station – Govindgarh (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur for the offence under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 333, 303(2), 74, 109(2) of BNS.

2. All these petitioners-accused are in custody and after investigation, police has already filed a charge-sheet against these petitioners and other accused. Two accused Pappulal s/o. Chhitarmal and Sunil s/o. Geegraj were released on bail under Section 483 of BNSS by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chomu, District Jaipur on 15.03.2025 and

25.03.2025 respectively.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners-accused submits that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police. They further submitted that a case is registered against unnamed persons and as per report lodged by Kanaram, 40-50 persons have assaulted father and uncle of complainant. They further submitted that due to grievous injury upon Jagdish Prasad Gurjar, he expired and the allegation of fatal injury is upon Manish Jat @ Dholu Papda. They referred statement of eye-witness injured Chanda, Kiran, Manvar Devi and Kaluram and submitted that none of them have identified any of the petitioners, who are seeking bail from this Hon’ble Court. They further submitted that the case is registered on Parchabayan of Kaluram and he has not named anyone for causing a deadly assault, which is clear to show that the accused were not known to injured. He further submitted that there is no independent witness present on spot and all the witnesses referred and [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (4 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] recorded by police are relatives of complainant-party and they are interested persons.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Sohanlal @ Sona submits that he is neither present on spot nor he was identified by anyone. He referred the investigation and submitted that his location was somewhere else, which is sufficient to show that this petitioner has no connection with the incident.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Rahul Lamba has submitted that there is neither any call detail nor identification to show his presence at spot. He also submitted that present petitioner is not having any criminal background and he is not involved in the entire incident.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Azaad Meena has also submitted that this petitioner is nowhere involved in the incident as he is not a person interested in the matter and there is no connection with main accused or any other co-accused to show that this petitioner was involved in the incident. He further submitted that the call details and location is also not matching with the site plan and there is no recovery from the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Mukesh Kumar Shukl has submitted that the location of present petitioner is not found at spot and admittedly, this petitioner was several hundred kilometers away from spot. He submitted that there is no evidence to show the meeting of mind or a person attached with key-conspirator. He further [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (5 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] referred affidavit of Kaluram Gurjar (injured) filed in support of present petitioner to show that this petitioner is not involved in the incident.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Aman Meena has submitted that this petitioner accused is a travel operator and he was not there at the spot. She also submitted that if someone takes his vehicle, then he is duty bound to provide vehicle on rent and at the time of rent, he is not aware about purpose, for which the vehicle will be used. She further referred the bail order of Sunil and Pappulal submits that both were drivers and granted bail.

9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-Mukesh Kumar Mandiya has also submitted that this petitioner was not found on spot and he was far away from the spot. He also submitted that there is no role and involvement of this petitioner-accused and merely use of vehicle by someone will not be sufficient to involved the petitioner accused.

10. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant.

11. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that this is a classic example of land-grabbers, who want to encroach upon land of others and disturb the peaceful possession of complainant-party. He submitted that he is having CCTV footage and video of the incident to show that how a peaceful family was disturbed by 40-50 goons with deadly arms. [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (6 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025]

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record.

13. A Parchabayan of Kaluram Gurjar (injured), recorded by police when he was under treatment at Emergency Ward at Barala Hospital, Chomu, Jaipur, but police report is registered by complainant-Kanaram s/o. Jagdish Gurjar, wherein he named Don Devaram Gurjar, Kanaram Bhumla, Sohan Gurjar, Prabhudayal Gurjar, Mukesh Gurjar, Gyarsilal, Shyamlal, Ramniwas, Vikram, Dinesh, Ashok Rawat and 40- 50 other persons in 10 vehicles, as persons who assaulted the father and uncle. As a result of this assault, Jagdish Prasad Gurjar succumbed to the injuries on 31.01.2025. Police has found primary involvement of Devaram Gurjar @ Deva, Kanaram Bhumla, M.P. Singh. The evidence also suggest that Manish Jat @ Dholu Papda has assaulted Jagdish Prasad Gurjar and Kaluram Guarjar.

14. In para-8 of charge-sheet, the role and involvement of Sohanlal Gurjar @ Sona Gurjar is mentioned by police and he was found involved in selling land of Gyarsilal, but police has found that Sohanlal Gurjar @ Sona Gurjar is not present at the spot, at the time of incident.

15. The role and involvement of Mukesh Kumar Shukl @ Prabhudayal Gurjar is mentioned in para-7 of charge-sheet and his role and involvement is also found as conspirator with relative Sohanlal Gurjar, Gyarsilal, Shyamlal and Ramniwas in sell of land. Police has found that Mukesh Kumar Shukl is also not present at the spot. An affidavit of [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (7 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] Kaluram Gurjar is also filed in support of this petitioner- accused Mukesh Kumar Shukl.

16. The role and involvement of Rahul Lamba is mentioned in para-12 of charge-sheet, which indicated that this accused was present with Ankit Tailor and was in connivance Mukesh Mandiya and Ratan Chopra. A vehicle was recovered at the behest of this petitioner. As per police, he was on spot.

17. The role and involvement of Azaad Meena is explained in para-14 of charge-sheet and he was also found involved with Ankit Tailor and his role and involvement is explained by police.

18. The role and involvement of Mukesh Kumar Mandiya is also explained in para-19 of charge-sheet and he was found on the spot with his group members. A Scorpio vehicle is recovered at the behest of this petitioner-accused.

19. The role and involvement of Aman Meena is explained in para-20 of charge-sheet and the police has found that this accused by using his Kia vehicle No. RJ-41-UA-3863 went to spot with labourers for cultivation.

20. Aforementioned facts narrated by police in charge-sheet indicated that Rahul Lamba, Azaad Meena, Aman Meena and Mukesh Kumar Mandiya are present at spot and their role and involvement is explained by police in the charge-sheet. The injured Kaluram Gurjar has filed an affidavit in support of Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o Shri Prabhudayal, who was not present at spot and charge of conspiracy in selling land is made against him. A similar charge has been made against [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (8 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] Sohanlal @ Sona, but there is no affidavit in favour of Sohanlal @ Sona.

21. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that no case is made out to release the petitioner-accused (i) Rahul Lamba S/o. Shri Sanwarmal; (ii) Azaad Meena S/o. Sh. Birju Meena; (iii) Aman Meena S/o. Ramgopal; and (iv) Mukesh Kumar Mandiya S/o. Sh. Ghisalalb, on bail, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case it is appropriate to allow bail applications of (i) Sohanlal Alias Sona S/o. Shri Sharwan Lal; (ii) Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o. Shri Prabhudayal.

22. Thus, the instant bail application No. 6517/2025 filed by Rahul Lamba S/o. Shri Sanwarmal, bail application No.6941/2025 filed by Azaad Meena S/o. Sh. Birju Meena, bail application No.7381/2025 filed by Aman Meena S/o. Ramgopal and bail application No.8010/2025 filed by Mukesh Kumar Mandiya S/o. Sh. Ghisalalb, are hereby dismissed and the bail application No.4186/2025 filed by Sohanlal Alias Sona S/o. Shri Sharwan Lal and bail application No.7006/2025 filed by Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o. Shri Prabhudayal, are hereby allowed and the applicants-accused (i) Sohanlal Alias Sona S/o. Shri Sharwan Lal; (ii) Mukesh Kumar Shukl S/o. Shri Prabhudayal, are ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of [2025:RJ-JP:30893] (9 of 9) [CRLMB-4186/2025] like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicants-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicants-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

23. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. PKS/83-88 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J