Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 646 (RAJ)

Mohit @ Jaildar v. State, Through PP

2019-02-25

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 483/2018 of Police Station Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh for the offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 109 and 120-B I.P.C. and Section 27 of Arms Act and charge-sheet has been filed before the concerned court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per charge-sheet, it is clear that on the day of incident i.e. on 24.9.2018, the petitioner was not present even in Rawatsar where the incident took place. It is also submitted that as a matter of fact, on the day of incident, the petitioner was in jail at Haryana in an another case and as per the charge-sheet, the allegation against the petitioner is only to the effect that he along with co- accused persons namely Ram Niwas Mahla and Mahendra Poonia had conspired to kill Harveer Saharan and for that purpose, they kept watching upon him from 12.9.2018 and 15.9.2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that allegations against the petitioner of hatching a criminal conspiracy along with co-accused Ram Niwas Mahla and Mahendra Poonia are false. It is also submitted that no definite evidence has been collected by the police which can prove the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that no recovery as such has been effected by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the police has failed to collect any evidence to the effect that the petitioner was in contact with the co-accused namely Ram Niwas Mahla and Mahendra Poonia in any manner and in absence of any such definite evidence, the charge of hatching criminal conspiracy with those co-accused persons falls flat. It is argued that as a matter of fact, it is a case of no evidence and the petitioner is in judicial custody since long, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. It is argued that as a matter of fact, it is a case of no evidence and the petitioner is in judicial custody since long, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that evidence to this nature is available on record to suggest that the petitioner had hatched a criminal conspiracy along with co-accused persons Ram Niwas Mahla and Mahendra Poonia to kill the deceased in lieu of money. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that police have collected evidence to this effect that a payment of around Rs. 15,000/- was made to the petitioner by co-accused Ram Niwas Mahla and Mahendra Poonia and evidence to this effect is also available on record that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons was stayed at Rawatsar on 12.9.2018 and 15.9.2018 only with intention to kill the deceased, however, the accused persons could not get a chance to kill the deceased and then he left for Haryana for some days where he was arrested by the police in another criminal case. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have also argued that the petitioner is involved in similar type of case in Haryana as well as in Rajasthan and several criminal cases are pending against him, hence, in any circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, having gone through the charge-sheet and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.