State of Rajasthan through PP v. For

Order 31/07/2025

1. The instant second bail application has been submitted by the petitioner for grant of bail to him in connection with FIR No.216/2023 registered at Police Station Suroth, District Karauli wherein he is charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

2. The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2024 granting liberty to him to renew his prayer for bail after recording the statements of five material witnesses namely Asha Ram, Maya, Preeti, Shivani and Niranjan.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after passing of the aforesaid order by this Court, now the statements of all these five material witnesses have been recorded before the Trial Court. Learned counsel submits that PW-1 Asha Ram is the complainant-informant, who lodged the FIR in the [2025:RJ-JP:29193] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9035/2025] instant case and he is also a signatory in the police report, which was prepared immediately after the occurrence of the incident, wherein he has not levelled any allegation against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that in the FIR, no general allegations have been levelled against the accused and no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that even in his police statement, he has not levelled specific allegations against the petitioner and for the first time, he has introduced the allegations against the petitioner in the Court when their statements were recorded. Learned counsel submits that similarly other material witnesses PW-2 Maya, PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Shivani and PW-5 Preeti have not levelled any specific overt act against the petitioner in their police statements and during their statements before the Court, for the first time, they have introduced the allegations against the petitioner for causing fire arm injuries upon the deceased. Learned counsel submits that PW-4 Shivani is the wife of the deceased, whose statement was recorded by the police after 3-4 months of the incident, which itself creates doubt upon the veracity of her statement.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested on 17.06.2023, but at the time of his arrest, neither the grounds of arrest were intimated to him nor his family members were informed about his arrest. Learned counsel submits that as per the provisions contained under Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”), it is the duty of every police officer arresting any person without warrant to communicate to him the full particulars of the offence for which [2025:RJ-JP:29193] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9035/2025] he has been arrested. Learned counsel submits that as per Article 22 of the Constitution of India, no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed the grounds of his arrest, but in the instant case, the provisions contained under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed, which has violated the Fundamental Right granted to the petitioner under Article 22 of the Constitution of India.

5. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the jugdments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar Versus State of Haryana and Another reported in 2025 (5) SCC 799 and Ashish Kakkar Versus UT of Chandigarh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1318.

6. Lastly, he argued that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and the trial will take its own time to conclude and, under the changed circumstances, the indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that in the FIR registered by PW-1 Asha Ram, he specifically alleges of the petitioner having caused fire arm injury to the deceased and the same has also been levelled against Lakshman, Ramesh, Mahesh, Dharmendra, Harendra.

8. Learned counsel submits that only improvement made by these witnesses in their court statements is that the petitioner shot bullet from his fire arm on the hip of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that the other witnesses have also categorically [2025:RJ-JP:29193] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9035/2025] stated in their police as well as court statement that the petitioner is one of the accused, who used fire arms and caused fire arm injuries upon the person of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that as per the memo of arrest prepared by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner was informed about his Fundamental Right and the offence committed by him, and the maternal uncle of the petitioner was informed about the arrest of the petitioner on his mobile bearing Phone No.9772012307. Learned counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was compliance of Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Lastly, he argued that even a fire arm and two cartridges have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court and hence the second bail application is liable to be rejected.

9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fire arm has not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory or Ballistics expert for getting their opinion as to whether the seized fire arm was the same fire arm, which was used at the time of incident or if the fire arm has shot or not.

10. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

11. Perusal of the FIR, statements of the five witnesses namely; PW-1 Asha Ram, PW-2 Maya, PW-3 Niranjan Singh, PW-4 Shivani and PW-5 Preeti indicate that not only in their police statement but also in their court statement, they have levelled clear and specific allegations against the petitioner for using fire arm and causing bullet injury upon the person of the deceased. [2025:RJ-JP:29193] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9035/2025]

12. If slight improvement or contradictions are there in the statement of any prosecution witness, those contradictions or improvements cannot be taken into account at the time of deciding the bail application of an accused. These evidences would be appreciated by the Trial Court at appropriate stage of the trial. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner that the provisions contained under Section 50 Cr.P.C. and Article 22 of the Constitution of India have not been followed.

13. A bare perusal of the memo of arrest of the accused reflects that he was informed the reasons of his arrest and his Fundamental Right contained under the Cr.P.C. and the Constitution of India and his maternal uncle was also informed about his arrest, hence, the judgments relied by counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain the second bail application. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.

15. Whatever has been observed by this Court is confined to disposal of this bail application. The Trial Court is expected to decide the matter on its merits on the basis of evidence available on the record without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court while deciding this second bail application. Karan/1 (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J