State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. Connected

Ms. Harshita Sharma : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Amit Jindal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 19/08/2025 Order

1. The present bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicant-accused Gaurav Sharma @ Golu @ Chotu S/o Sh. Sureshchand Sharma and Mohammad [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024] Anees @ Tinku Khan S/o Mohammed Khalil Pathan seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.599/2019 dated 23.012.2019 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram District - Kota , for the offence under Sections 302, 143, 120B IPC and 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that no chances of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate in trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner Gaurav is in custody since 11.08.2021 and his custody is more than 4 years whereas period of incarceration of accused Mohammad Anees is more than 5 years 9 months. He further referred FIR registered on 23.12.2019, after a delay of 1 day by wife of deceased Ranveer Singh and submitted that due to animosity and rivalry the accused were named by Gaurav. He also submitted that the complainant has named herself and her daughter Falguni as an eyewitness but none of them were in fact an eyewitness to the incident. He also submitted that report is filed only on ground of suspicion and not on actually witnessing of the incident. He further referred the case of Gaurav and submitted that he has not been named in the FIR and no one has witnessed him as a person present at the time of [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024] commission of crime. He also submitted that Petitioner Gaurav is implicated one and half years after the incident, and prior to that not a single witness named him for involvement. He further referred the material collected by police and submitted that prosecution has claimed that when present Petitioner accused was in Udaipur jail then he came in contact with Shivraj and since then he became a member of Shivraj Gang.

4. He further submitted that as per report and investigation conducted by police, the entire conspiracy was hatched by Shivraj and he is main accused, who was granted bail in the instant case. He also submitted that present petitioner was assigned with the role of Reiki and police has collected a transfer detail of ₹5,000 to wife of accused to show that for recky of deceased Ranveer Singh, present petitioner was paid ₹5,000 as a fee. He also submitted that neither there is any recovery nor any information which led any discovery of new facts, therefore, present petitioner accused is not having any role in the incident.

5. He further referred case of Mohammed Anees and submitted that though petitioner is named in FIR but he has not been identified and only evidence against him is Sudha, wife of deceased but she has not identified him. He also referred police investigation against Mohammed Anees and submitted that on the basis of information recorded during police custody, a recovery is affected from open place and not from exclusive possession of petitioner accused. [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024]

6. He also submitted that no specific attribution is made upon present petitioner and the allegations are omnibus in nature and same is not sufficient to keep petitioner in custody.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has further submitted written submission and submitted that six persons were named in FIR, and after investigation, police has filed first charge sheet against 6 persons and kept pending against 5 persons but later after one and half years filed second charge sheet against 3 persons including Gaurav and kept pending against 4 persons. He further submitted that investigation is kept pending against Harun and Ajay, who were named in FIR. He further submitted that accused Vikram, Mohammad Masoor, Abdul Rashid, Shivraj and Manish were granted bail in the matter.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners has further placed reliance upon judgments in cases of Sheikh Javed Iqbal Vs. State of UP 2024 INSC 534, NCB Vs. Lakhwinder Singh 2025 INSC 190, Badul Majeed Lone Vs. UT of J&K MANU/SCOR/68157/2022 and Tapan Das Vs. Union of India MANU/SCOR/37937/2021 and submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted bail in even more heinous and serious cases wherein accused is in custody for longer time. He also referred judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Bombay High Court in case of Vikas Chandrakant Patil Bs. State of Maharashtra 2025 BHC- AS:21768 and submitted that without considering the legal position, the petitioners accused are entitled to be released on bail [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024]

9. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

10. Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the bail application and submitted that Mohammed Anees is named in FIR and during investigation, a firearm is recovered from Mohammed Anees. He further submitted that allegation upon Mohammed Anees is for firing and direct participation in the incident. He further submitted that accused Gaurav was engaged as sharpshooter and one of the accused, Ajay, has not been arrested so far. He also submitted that Gaurav was present at the spot and his presence is identified by Phalguni, (daughter of deceased). He also submitted that there were three eyewitnesses to the incident, and one of the important eyewitness, Paramveer was already murdered so that he may not depose against the petitioner. He also submitted that petitioners accused belong to a powerful and organized gang and all likely that they may influence witness, if they are being released on bail. He further referred order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein dismissal of bail of co-accused Sharafat Ali is upheld. He also submitted that during test identification parade (TIP), Phalguni has identified Gaurav who is a sharpshooter and was present at the spot.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024]

12. On the basis of the report lodged by Sudha Choudhury on

23.12.2019 about the incident of the shooting of her husband in the evening of 22.12.2019, the matter is registered and investigated. The FIR is registered against six named persons, but the first charge sheet is filed against six persons and further kept pending against five persons. In the first charge sheet, the petitioner accused Gaurav is neither named nor a mentioned for keeping pending investigation against him. The second charge sheet is filed against Shivraj, Lokesh, and Gaurav but Gaurav is neither named in FIR nor in the first charge sheet and now kept pending investigation against Ajay, Harun, Manish, and Mahesh. Ajay and Harun were named in the FIR, but no charge-sheet is filed against them. The petitioner accused Mohammed Anees is arrested on 12.01.2020 whereas Gaurav is arrested on 04.08.2021 and since then they are in custody. The material on record indicated that a pistol is recovered at the instance of Anees @ Tinku on the basis of information under section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that recovery is effected from open place and this issue is subject matter of evidence. After arrest of Gaurav, a test identification parade was conducted and Phalguni has identified him as one of the persons who was present at the spot though he was not named in the report. The report indicated that 8-10 persons came at the spot but 6 names were mentioned which means 2-4 more persons were involved in the incident but they [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024] were not known to complainant. The role and involvement of Gaurav is subject matter of trial.

13. In case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal Vs. State of UP (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered bail of a person, who was in detention under UAPA Act and in custody since

23.02.2015. We agree that accused has right of speedy trial and it is duty of the trial court to proceed as expeditiously as possible. The period of incarceration of Mohd. Anees is more than 5 years 9 months whereas Gaurav is in custody since

11.08.2021 and he is in custody for more than 4 years. Even in case of NCB Vs. Lakhwinder Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld grant of bail wherein fixed term sentence is awarded. The underlying principle is to balance between legal position and right of accused. The bail of Shrafat Ali was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and same is upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on

21.04.2025.

14. We have considered and taken note of principle of law as referred during course of argument but herein this case, it is very important to note that one of the eye-witness Paramveer was murdered before recording his statement by the trial court. It is very surprising that a proper protection is not provided by system to a vulnerable witness particularly when a charge-sheet has been filed against organized syndicate or members of criminal gang.

15. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicants is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicants in [2025:RJ-JP:32417] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-10173/2024] the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicants accused on bail.

16. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail applications of the applicants accused at this stage.

17. Accordingly, the applications for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Gaurav Sharma @ Golu @ Chotu S/o Sh. Sureshchand Sharma and Mohammad Anees @ Tinku Khan S/o Mohammed Khalil Pathan are hereby dismissed.

18. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial and record the statement of material witness as early as possible, within a period of six months from date of receipt of copy of this order. PREETI VALECHA 28-29 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J