Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 620 (RAJ)

Chandra Shekhar v. State of Rajasthan

2011-03-23

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2011
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a bomb exploded in the area falling within Police Station, Dargah, Ajmer on 11.10.2007 at about 6.00 pm. Thereafter on a report lodged by one Syed Sarwar Chisti, a resident of Khadim Mohalla, Ajmer, the investigation commenced. From the place of incident an unclaimed bag, containing an unexploded bomb, was recovered by the investigation agency. Further, it is disclosed from the investigation that from the bombs (one exploded and another unexploded), two simcards were recovered out of which one was damaged and two mobile phones are said to have been used as timer devices. The number of the damaged simcard, recovered from the exploded bomb, was 89915220000005190837 and the mobile number was 9931304642. The said simcard was that of AIRTEL services in Bihar and Jharkhand and was activated on 02.06.2006. The holder of the simcard was Babulal Yadav son of Shri Ramphar Yadav, resident of House No.210, Village Kangoi, Post Mihijam, District Dumka. Number of the mobile which was used as timer device for the unexploded bomb was 97321-10207. The simcard was that of VODAFONE services in West Bengal. The holder of the said simcard was Babu Lal Yadav son of Shri Manohar Yadav, resident of Samdhi Road, Roop Narayanpur, Asansol, Vardhman. It is also revealed from the investigation that in all 11 simcards were purchased between the period 24.05.2006 to 26.11.2006, on the basis of fabricated voter I.D. Cards and driving licences. 3. During the course of interrogation, Prasad Shrikant Purohit is said to have stated that on 29.12.2007 Swami Aseemanand had told him on phone that one of his close associate Sunil Joshi had been murdered at Devas (Madhya Pradesh) because he had got the bomb exploded at Ajmer. Another accused Devendra Gupta is said to have stated, during interrogation, that late Sunil Joshi had worked for the bomb blast at Ajmer and he alongwith Sandeep Dange, Ramji Kalsangra and Lokesh Sharma were with him. Further, it was revealed that the arrangement for the explosive was made by Lokesh Sharma alongwith Sunil Joshi. Lokesh Sharma was arrested on 15.05.2010 and he had given the information about the place from where the explosive was purchased and also other places where the planning was made and the bombs were prepared. Further, it was revealed that the arrangement for the explosive was made by Lokesh Sharma alongwith Sunil Joshi. Lokesh Sharma was arrested on 15.05.2010 and he had given the information about the place from where the explosive was purchased and also other places where the planning was made and the bombs were prepared. According to Lokesh Sharma, the time device used in the form of mobile phone was purchased from Faridabad. Ishant Chawla was the salesman of L.E.C. Communications, Faridabad and he sold two mobile sets to Lokesh Sharma on 24.04.2007. 4. As per the investigation, the entire planning and steps for its execution was done by late Sunil Joshi @ Manoj Kumar since the month of October, 2005 alongwith other associates. On the basis of fabricated voter I.D. card, one simcards with mobile number 9931310168 and a Nokia 2600 Mobile was purchased on 24.05.2006 from Sarawagi Communication, Jamtada. Another Simcard having mobile number 9931304642 was purchased on 31.05.2006 in the name of Babu Lal Yadav, on the basis of fabricated voter I.D. Card, from the shop being run by Rajesh Kumar in the name of Mobile Care at Bus Stand, Dumka (Jharkhand). Another simcard with mobile phone number 9732110207 was purchased in the name of Babu Lal Yadav on the basis of fabricated driving licence from Sargam Audio Vision, Station Road, Chitranjan (West Bengal). On arrest of Devendra Gupta, driving licences of West Bengal were recovered from him. The other driving licence on the basis of fabricated ration card and school transfer certificate, in the name of late Sunil Joshi @ Manoj Kumar, was also got prepared by him. After receiving the simcards and mobile phones, the accused Sandeep Dange, Ramji Kalsnagra and Sunil Joshi are said to have prepared the bombs and used them as timer device. On 11.10.2007, soon after the incident, Sunil Joshi had informed Bharat Bhai Rateshwar, resident of Balsad (Gujrat) on mobile phone that bomb blast had taken place at Ajmer. 5. On having come to know, during the course of investigation, that the mobile phones were functioning then their location was traced so as to seize them for the purpose of evidence. On 19.10.2009, the investigation team reached Sujalpur (M.P.) and recovered three mobile phones from the petitioner, Ravindra Patidar and Santosh Patidar, after preparing the seizure memos. 5. On having come to know, during the course of investigation, that the mobile phones were functioning then their location was traced so as to seize them for the purpose of evidence. On 19.10.2009, the investigation team reached Sujalpur (M.P.) and recovered three mobile phones from the petitioner, Ravindra Patidar and Santosh Patidar, after preparing the seizure memos. Further it had come in the investigation that four mobile phones were received by the accused Chandra Shekhar in the year 2008 from co-accused Sandeep Dange who had kept the mobiles in an atechi and given it to Goverdhan Singh, a resident of Chakrond, District Shajapur (M.P.) and Harinarayan Patidar, as per their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded on 23.09.2010 for handing over the same to the petitioner. One mobile phone was then used by the accused petitioner himself and the other three were handed over to Vishnu Patidar, a resident of Khardon Kalan who had destroyed one mobile which was not working. 6. On conclusion of the investigation, challan was filed on 20.10.2010 against six persons for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, The Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 7. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the accused petitioner had no concern with the commission of crime and there is no evidence against him in the charge sheet, in respect of the incident of bomb explosion at Ajmer on 11.10.2007. Further, he has submitted that the accused petitioner was neither involved, in any manner, prior to the incident which took place on 11.10.2007, nor he was a member of the group which had planned for bomb explosion or in furtherance of it took steps for collecting the explosive, preparing the bomb, fabricating the I.D. cards and other documents for the purchase of simcard/ mobile phones. According to him, even if the evidence on record is taken as it is, the allegation against the petitioner at the most can be said to be in respect of offence under Sections 201 or 202 IPC. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 01.05.2010 and taking into consideration the evidence collected during investigation which has already been concluded, he may now be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application. Therefore, he has submitted that the petitioner is in jail since 01.05.2010 and taking into consideration the evidence collected during investigation which has already been concluded, he may now be enlarged on bail. 8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has strongly opposed the bail application. He has submitted that there is evidence on record, collected during the course of investigation, so as to connect the petitioner with the crime. Further, he has submitted that the mobile phone which was found in possession of the petitioner, on 19.10.2009, was one of those which was used at the time of incident on 11.10.2007. He has also submitted that it has come on record, at later point of time, that the accused petitioner had asked Vishnu Patidar that in case he is asked about the mobiles then he should take the name of Pankaj Patidar. Thus, he has submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the bail application of the accused petitioner be dismissed by this Court. 9. In a recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC 784 , decided on 03.01.2011, the order of Kerala High Court passed on 17.09.2010, granting bail to the respondent Dr. Raneef, was upheld and the SLP filed by State of Kerala was dismissed. In the said case, the respondent gave medical aid to one of the wounded accused in pursuance of a previous plan that if and when any of the assailants got injured in the attack on Professor Jacob then immediate medical treatment would be given by the respondent. The respondent had stitched the back of an assailant. The respondent, alongwith other accused was a member of Popular Front of India, a Muslim organisation, and was also the head of its medical committee. Certain documents, CDs, mobile phone, books, etc. including a book called 'Jehad' were allegedly seized from his house and car. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case of the respondent Dr. Raneef was different from those who were the alleged assailants. There was no allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants. Certain documents, CDs, mobile phone, books, etc. including a book called 'Jehad' were allegedly seized from his house and car. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the case of the respondent Dr. Raneef was different from those who were the alleged assailants. There was no allegation that the respondent was one of the assailants. Further, it was observed, in para 12 (2), that prima facie the only offence that can be levelled against the respondent (therein) is that under Section 202 IPC, that is, of omitting to give information of the crime to the police, and this offence has also to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Section 202 is a bailable offence. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State of Kerala was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 10. On having carefully considered the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence on record filed alongwith the challan, particularly about the persons involved in planning, preparation and commission of the crime which had taken place by way of bomb explosion on 11.10.2007 at Ajmer and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 11. Consequently, the bail application is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Leve in F.I.R. No.85/2007, registered at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.