Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 542 (RAJ)

Manish Meena v. State of Rajasthan

2020-06-02

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2020
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.137/2019 registered at Police Station Bhuhana, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Section 302, 380, 201 and 120B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chargesheet has already been filed. From the charge-sheet, no case under Section 302 IPC can be said to be made out. The allegation is of causing death of one Subodh wife of the complainant who is stated to have been murdered by a conspiracy hatched by the accused-petitioner and Alpana, daughter in law of the complainant and deceased-Subodh alongwith one Krishna Kumar @ K.K.. The complaint was lodged on 23/07/2019 with regard to the incident alleged to have taken place between 2nd and 3rd June, 2019. 2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the allegations levelled are wholly imaginary and it cannot be said that the accused-petitioner was in any manner involved in death of the deceased-Subodh who had died of snake biting. Learned counsel further submitted that the so-called telephonic conversions recorded cannot be said to be authentic and the same was handed over to the Investigating Agency only on 14/10/2019 and there is no reference of the said video recording in the FIR. He further submitted that the allegations are based on circumstantial evidence and there is no proper link. He also submitted that there is no MLR available on record and it is also not known as to where the deceased was treated as there is no document relating to the treatment placed in the charge-sheet. The entire case has been set up on the basis of the recovery of a motorcycle, video recording and message on face-book. Even if there is any relation between the petitioner and Alpana, it could not mean that the petitioner and Alpana have in any manner conspired to kill Subodh who died admittedly on account of snake biting. The allegations based on the statement of snake charmer cannot be believed upon as there is no identification of the accused-petitioner by the snake charmer. 2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments in Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 1 ; Sudhir Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016) 8 SCC 307 ; Nilesh Dinkar Padarkar Vs. 2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgments in Ritesh Sinha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 1 ; Sudhir Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016) 8 SCC 307 ; Nilesh Dinkar Padarkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 4 SCC 143 ; Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K. Bashir & Ors., (2014) 10 SCC 473 ; Jatindra Pal Singh Vs. Krishan Kishore Bajaj, CRM-M No.37435 of 2018 (O&M), decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court on 29/10/2018; Shanu Vs. State of Raj. (CRMLB No.3055/2017 decided by this Court order dated 3.3.2017); Smt. Galli Vs. State of Raj. (CRMLB No.12011/2018, decided by this Court vide order dated 28.9.2018); Deepika Gaur Vs. State of Raj. (CRMLB No.11802/2019, decided by this Court vide order dated 19.9.2019); Veeru@Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRMLB No.3308/2020, decided by this Court vide order dated 20.4.2020); Sanni Prajapat Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRMLB No.14499/2019 decided by this Court vide order dated 21.11.2019); Kishan@Neeta Vs. State of Rajasthan (CRMLB NO.6372/2018, decided by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2018). 3. Learned PP opposed the bail application. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant also opposed the bail application and submitted that the chain of evidence clearly shows guilt of the petitioner. The charge-sheet has been filed on the basis of CDR and detailed analysis. The bag in which the snake was packed and brought by the accused-petitioner and the other co-accused Krishna Kumar @ KK has also been recovered and there is sufficient evidence to show that the deceased-Subodh was killed by conspiracy and active participation of the accusedpetitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned PP as well as learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the case diary as well as the judgments cited on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. This Court finds prima-facie that there is statement of snake charmer namely; Dara Singh under Section 164 Cr.P.C. which implicates the accused-petitioner. There are transcripts of the recorded video-graphs also. The judgments which have been cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are in the nature of the defence arguments which can be examined during trial. At this stage, this Court, without commenting further on merits of the case, is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Consequently, the bail application is rejected.