State of Rajasthan, through PP v. For

: Ms. Simran Bharti For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor Ms. Poonam Mishra with Mr. Ramdeo Arya for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 28/01/2025 Order

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.633/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dausa, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 and 302 IPC.

2. Brief fats of the case are that a written report was submitted by one Mr. Naresh Mehra at Police Station Kotwali, Dausa which came to be registered as formal F.I.R. No.633/2023on 29.12.2023 at 6.43 AM, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 and 302 of IPC. It has been submitted by the complainant in the [2025:RJ-JP:3985] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15185/2024] written report that he has a shop and a parcel of land situated at Lalsot Road, Near Krishna Hospital, Dausa, where he resides with his family. On 28.12.2023, at 5-6 PM in the evening, he went to his old house, which was situated at Babdi Pada, Dausa. However, the other family members were present at the above-mentioned shop and land. In the fateful night, at about 1.15 AM, one Himanshu Sharma, Aakash Sharma @ Ilu and Rajendra Kumar Saini came on the said land along with 20-25 other persons armed with lathies, saria and sharp edged weapons. Complainant further mentioned that all these persons trespassed into the land, broken the wall and the gate situated at the land. These persons started pelting stones as also assaulted informant's mother Laddo Devi, one Anokhi Devi, informant's father Mool Chand, his cousin sister Guddi, Jeeja Babu Lal, with lathies, danda, saria etc. Due to the injuries suffered on the hands by the assailants, informant's mother Laddo Devi died on the spot. The other persons namely, Anokhi Devi (natural mother of the informant), father Mool Chand, cousin sister Guddi and Jeeja Babu Lal also got injuries. The aforesaid incident was alleged to have been witnessed by Naveen Mahawar, Naresh Kumar Bairwa and wife of Naresh, as they were present on the spot. It was also stated in the report that Naresh Kumar Bairwa happens to be the tenant. It was also mentioned in the written report that accused persons also vandalized two [2025:RJ-JP:3985] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15185/2024] vehicles parked in the vicinity. These persons had visited the premises with the intention to take over possession over the land forcefully. Complainant further mentioned that in past these persons also had attacked the informant and his family members with an object to take possession over the land and had caused grievous injuries.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged incident and he has been falsely implicated in the matter. Counsel further submits that it is the matter where Himanshu @ Bantu was trying to take over the land-in-question but the accused-petitioner has no relation with Himanshu @ Bantu. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is a young boy of 24 years of age and he is in judicial custody since

12.01.2024. Counsel also submits that the petitioner was taken to the place of incident by the co-accused, namely, Shankar and Sitaram saying that they are going to attend the birthday party at Mehndipur Balaji. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner was not known about the intention of the co-accused. Counsel further submits that there are no specific allegations against the present accused- petitioner and he has been implicated in this case merely because of his presence as has been shown at the place of incident which is because he was taken to the place by misleading him by the co-accused. Counsel also submits that [2025:RJ-JP:3985] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15185/2024] the accused-petitioner came with the co-accused under the charm of visiting at Mehndipur Balaji.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant-Ms. Poonam Mishra opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-petitioner alongwith the other co-accused gathered at Jaipur and from there they went to Dausa and committed murder of the deceased. It is also submitted that the accused-petitioner has been identified by the witness Smt. Guddi Devi, Moochand Mehra and Babulal.

5. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers alongwith Test Identification report.

6. On perusal of the charge-sheet and the evidence collected during investigation, it is revealed that the accused persons under the controversy leaded by Himanshu, assembled and went to the place of incident to take possession over the property in question. The present accused petitioners alongwith other accused persons were collected at Jaipur on 28.12.2023 and went to Dausa in vehicles via Manoharpur, which is evident from the CCTV footage of toll plaza and they stayed at farmhouse of one Sanwar Khan under the arrangement of the co-accused Akash @ Bhupesh and Trivenishyam @ Vivek where they consumed liquor/beer and were provided iron rods, lathies, etc. and thereafter they all came to the spot and made attack on the complainant party resulting into death of deceased namely; Lado Devi and in the said incident certain other persons also sustained injuries. It is also to be noted [2025:RJ-JP:3985] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15185/2024] that the accused petitioners have given effect to the incident in midnight at about 1:15 AM when almost everyone was in sleep. The accused petitioners are in custody from 07.04.2024 i.e. for last 7 months.

7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roopesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; Criminal Appeal No.___/2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.12048/2024 and connected appeals, decided on 20.11.2024, concealed the order of bail granted by the High Court and observed as under:- “Keeping in view the gravity of the offences, the period of incarceration undergone by the three respondents/accused, and the stage of the trial, we feel that the High Court was not correct in enlarging the three respondents, namely, Jaiveer, Abhimanyu @ Mintu and Satyaprakash @ Satya @ Chaniya, on bail on connection with the charge- sheet in the present case.”

8. This Court has already dismissed the bail applications of the co-accused, namely, Akash @ Bhupesh, Kamlesh and Trivenishyam @ Vivek whose case is also on the same footings.

9. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence collected during investigation and more particularly the fact of manner in which the crime has been committed and considering the identification of the accused petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.

10. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. Ashish Kumar /482 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J