Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1510 (RAJ)

Shivraj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2021-08-16

DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

body2021
ORDER 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 56/2011, Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 332, 353, 307, 302 & 102-B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that PW-2 Anurag, PW-3 Surendra Gautam, PW-4 Brijendra Singh, PW-5 Vikram Singh S/o Laxman Singh, PW-6 Vikram Singh S/o Prithvi Raj Singh, PW-11 Ravi, P-12 Hitesh, PW-13 Vicky, PW-18 Bhanwar Lal, PW-28 Mukesh, PW-29 Prem Singh, PW-31 Sanjay and PW-35Manoj Yadav have not supported the story of the prosecution and as such they have declared hostile by the learned Trial Court; that the story of the prosecution has not been proved by any of the eye-witnessess; that PW-30 Surendra Solanki has admitted that the clothes are not available/present before the Court today; that PW-36 Ram Kishore, motbir of the recovery memo of persons, who is not an independent witness, stated that it is an admitted position that all these memos are prepared at MBS Hospital, Kota and at every time, there were number of patients and their attendants were available in that Hospital; that PW-48 Dr. Vitthal Bhardwaj admitted that the injuries caused to Bherulal may be injures of any road accident, such type of injuries may be caused in any road accident; that all the witnesses present at the spot (crime scene) categorically stated that, ^^ yxHkx 10 ls 15 vkneh jkbZQy] fiLVy] 12 cksj oxsjk ls Qk;j djrs vk;s vkSj mUgksaus xkMh dks pkjks rjQ ls ?ksj fy;k tokc esa gekjs daekMksa us Qk;j fd;s ftlls,d dkcZu ls Qk;j ugha gks ik;k o ckgj ls vkokt vk jghs Fkh ekjks&ekjk** Learned counsel further stated that there is no specific allegation against the accused-petitioner; that the accused-petitioner has not been identified at the spot or even thereafter; that there are material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses; that Mohammed Salim (PW-1) admitted that due to darkness, he cannot identified any of the accused and he was not sure that the person identified by him in the Court was present at the spot or not; that Bheru Lal, who was the in-charge of the police team, has wrongly identified the accused in the Court, he identified accused Giriraj Singh as Allu @ Arvind, identified accused Allu @ Arvind Singh as Shivraj Singh, the present petitioner as also has wrongly identified accused Giriraj Singh as Allu @ Arvind Singh; that PW-7 Bheru Lal alsoadmitted that, ^^ikjlksyh Fkkus dk tkIrk gesa dksVqUnk eksM ls vkxs rd LdkWV fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd ikjlks yh ds mijkUr dksVqUnk eksM] eSuky] vkjksyh] fctksft;ka ds Fkkuksa dk {ks=kf/kdkj vkrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ikjlksyh Fkkus dh lhek lekIr gksus ds mijkUr ?kVuk ?kVhr gqbZ rc rd fdlh Hkh Fkkus dh LdkWV ugha Fkh** This witness further stated that he did not inform any of the concerned Police Station in this regard because there was no wireless network and did not inform through mobile of any person; that on the contrary, PW-16 Kanti Lal, driver of the pick-up van stated that information in regard to escort had been sent by Bheru Lal. This witness Kanti Lal further stated that he identified the accused-petitioner on the basis of guess work. This witness Kanti Lal further stated that he identified the accused-petitioner on the basis of guess work. Learned counsel stated that as per the statement of PW-9 Prem Singh and PW-10 Shabbir Mohammed stated that, when they reached at the spot after arrival of the police party, two persons came after 15 minutes and upon asking, they stated that when firing was started, they ran away from the spot, one of them was the Incharge of that police party and another was the driver of the pick-up van and, therefore, the statement of incharge Bheru Lal and driver are false. Learned counsel stated that in these circumstances, the statement of Bheru Lal is not reliable; that there were 127 witnesses in the list of witnesses and out of 127 witnesses, only 85 witnesses have been examined till date, meaning thereby, that 42 witnesses are yet to be examined. Learned counsel also stated that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 05.09.2011 (approx. 10 years); and that further trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner. 4. In support of his contention that, the accused cannot be kept behind the bars for indefinite time, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has referred and relied upon the judgment/order 01.02.2021 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb and Order dated 27.07.2021 rendered in the case of Paras Ram Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that while relying on the order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Paras Ram Vishnoi's case (supra), co-ordinate Bench/s of this Court has given the benefit of bail to the accused persons, namely, Ashok S/o Bansi Lal, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (4th Bail Application No. 10534/2021), Om Prakash S/o Mohan Ram, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (4th Bail Application No. 10533/2021), Sahi Ram, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No,. 10156/2021), Umesha Ram S/o late Fagluram Bishnoi, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No. 8316/2021). 6. 10156/2021), Umesha Ram S/o late Fagluram Bishnoi, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No. 8316/2021). 6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner stated that the benefit of bail has already been granted by the co-ordinate Bench/ s of this Court to the co-accused persons, namely, Arun Kumar Gautam vide order dated 12.12.2012 (Bail Application No. 3105/2012), Alu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 31.05.2012 (Bail Application No. 3997/2012), Giriraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2013 (Bail Application No. 3994/2013), Harendra Singh vide order dated 03.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1056/2014), Kanhai Singh vide order dated 04.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1194/2014), Arun Kumar vide order dated 17.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1370/2014), Moni Tomar @ Virendra Pratap Singh vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1793/2014), Arjun Singh @ Monu vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1794/2014), Mukesh vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1795/2014), Dinesh vide order dated 07.03.2014 (Bail Application No. 2209/2014), Sandeep @ Monti vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No. 2530/2014), Sarvesh Singh vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No. 2794/2014), Allu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 16.05.2014 (Bail Application No. 3894/2014), Shirvaj Singh vide order dated 17.09.2015 (Bail Application No. 6343/2015), Sachin Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11914/2015), Ajju @ Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11915/2015), Niru Kushwah @ Narendra Pratap Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11917/2015), Allu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 25.01.2017 (Bail Application No. 7226/2016), Ajju @ Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated 19.07.2017 (Bail Application No.2257/2017), Suresh Jain @ Puchhi vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail Application No. 9196/2017), Suraj Singh vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail Application No. 10470/2017), Shivraj Singh vide order dated 07.02.2018 (Bail Application No. 1301/2018), Giriraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2019 (Bail Application No. 8472/2018), Suraj Singh vide order dated 30.01.2019 (Bail Application No. 10651/2018), Suraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2019 (Bail Application No. 5872/2019), Suraj Singh vide order dated 03.12.2020 (Bail Application No. 11995/2020), Kanhai Singh vide order dated 29.03.2013 (Bail Application No. 466/2013). 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Mr. Farzand Ali assisted by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Mr. Farzand Ali assisted by the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan have vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that the accused-petitioner is one of the hardcore gangster; that one another First Information Report, being FIR No. 599/2019 has been registered at R.K. Puram Police Station, Kota by a lady wherein, allegation to the effect, that the present accused-petitioner is running his gang from jail and the accused-petitioner is responsible for the murder of her husband. 8. Learned GA-cum-AAG admitted that the co-accused in that case namely, Ajju, has already been granted benefit of bail. He further stated that the story of the prosecution has fully been supported by the statements of the Bheru Lal and Kanti Lal and other witnesses. Learned GA-cum-AAG Mr. Farzand Ali prays for imposing the condition of furnishing heavy bail bonds and condition regarding marking presence of the accused-petitioner before the concerned Police Station in last week of every month until decision of the case by the Trial Court. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the facts that as per the prosecution that 10-15 persons came on the spot and started firing; that there is no specific allegation against the accused-petitioner; that the accused-petitioner has not been identified by any of the witnesses; that there are discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner; that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since approximately 10 years; that further having regard to the observations as made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as referred hereinabove; that further trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 10. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. 10. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner, Shivraj Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 56/2011, Police Station Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) with two sound and solvent surety bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) (both the sureties shall be furnished by the blood relatives/close relatives of the accused-petitioner) 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. 11. As requested by the learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General Mr. Farzand Ali and in the interest of justice, the accused-petitioner is directed to mark his attendance in the jurisdictional Police Station in which his residential area falls, in the last week of every month till the final decision of the case by the Trial Court.