State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. For

: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 03/02/2025 Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.114/1999 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur for the offence(s) under Section 365 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the accused-petitioner was not aware that investigation against him was kept pending and later on charge- sheet under Section 299 of Cr.P.C., was produced. It is also contended that the police obtained the arrest warrant under Section 24 of Police Act in the year 2006 and the same was issued in the year 2006. The incident pertains to the year 1999, the [2025:RJ-JP:4526] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14248/2024] arrest warrant issued against the accused-petitioner remained unexecuted as the concerned process server after making inquiry from the Ward Panch and Sarpanch found that the accused- petitioner has left the village approximately about 10 years before. The report of the concerned Sarpanch is annexed with the arrest warrant. It is also contended that the proclamation issued under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., was also not in the knowledge of the accused-petitioner as he was not having any property in his name, when the proclamation was issued. The certificate of the concerned Sarpanch clearly indicated that the property in possession of the petitioner was sold 13 years before the issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the upon knowledge of the issuance of the proceedings, the accused-petitioner himself surrendered before the Trial Court. The other co-accused were acquitted under Sections 364, 147, 302, 396, 120-B and 201 of IPC by the learned trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2006. The accused-petitioner is presently residing in Gautambuddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. There is no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner and he is in custody since long. In the FIR, name of the accused-petitioner is not mentioned and no identification parade was conducted. The petitioner was involved only on the information disclosed by the co-accused Tahir Husain. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:4526] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14248/2024]

5. Heard and perused the material available on record. Vide order dated 23.01.2025, the Registry was directed to obtain the report from the Special Judge Fake Currency Cases, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur, regarding proceedings drawn under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., along with the warrant issued under Section 24 of the Police Act. Pursuant to the directions, learned Trial Court has sent the report along with the relevant papers. The warrant against the accused-petitioner was obtained by the investigating agency from the concerned Court in the year 2006. The incident pertains to the year 1999, pursuant to the direction passed by the learned trial Court, the warrant against the accused-petitioner was issued in the year 2006 which remained unexecuted. The concerned process server in his statement has stated that the accused-petitioner was not residing at his village from the last 10 years. The process server has procured the certificate from the concerned Sarpanch, wherein it is stated that the accused-petitioner is not residing for more than 10 years in the village and has also sold his property before 13 years. It is also reported in the warrant that there is no property in the name of accused-petitioner. Subsequently, the proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C., was initiated against the petitioner in the year 2010. In the said proclamation, it was again certified by the concerned Sarpanch that the accused-petitioner is not residing in the village. It was also certified by SHO, Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur, that the petitioner is not having any property in the village Ghata. Thus, it is apparent that the accused-petitioner was not aware about the issuance of arrest [2025:RJ-JP:4526] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14248/2024] warrant and subsequent issuance of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. The accused-petitioner himself surrendered before the concerned Trial Court after getting the information that standing warrant against him has been issued. The accused- petitioner is in custody since long and the Trial Court has not recorded any evidence, till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed on record the entire order-sheets upto

13.01.2025. On merits also, the main co-accused have been acquitted under Sections 365, 147, 120-B, 302, 396 and 201 of IPC. The accused-petitioner was not named in the FIR and his name was disclosed by the other co-accused. Apart from the disclosure statement of the other co-accused, there is no other substantive evidence available on record against the accused- petitioner regarding his involvement in the present crime. Therefore, considering the above facts and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. The accused-petitioner shall submit his permanent residence documents before the concerned Court and concerned Court after verifying the residential address of the accused-petitioner, if deems proper, shall released the accused-petitioner on bail on following conditions.

7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Ballu Khati @ Moogal Singh @ Sachidanand S/o Shri Yadram Guru Shri Karunanand in connection with FIR No.114/1999 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur shall be enlarged on bail [2025:RJ-JP:4526] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14248/2024] provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Keshav/3 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J