Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 836 (RAJ)

Bharat Vaishnav v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-04-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Sandeep Mehta, J. - The instant second bail application under Section 439 CrPC has been preferred by the petitioner Bharat Vaishnav S/o Nawaldas, who is in custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.119/2020 registered at the Police Station Falna, District Pali for the offences under Sections 143, 302/34 and 120-B IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that one Kan singh was murdered by firing gunshots at him while he and his friend Pradeep Singh were having tea at Shivam Tea Stall, Near Khalsa Petrol Pump, Sanderao Road on 20.08.2020 at about 11.30 a.m. It is alleged that two unknown persons came around on a motorcycle and both started firing guns indiscriminately towards Kan Singh. They also fired on the shutter of the shop. Kan Singh fell down at the spot and expired as a result of the firearem injuries. The incident was witnessed by Pradeep Singh, Vijendra Singh, Abid and the hotel owner Pratap Singh. Madan Singh, lodged an FIR regarding the murder at the Police Station Falna on the very same day at about 5.00 pm., wherein he expressed a suspicion that the assailants had conspired together with some other persons to murder his brother. It was also alleged in the typed report that there was a strong suspicion regarding involvement of Bharat Vaishnav and his wife Rinku, Ankita (resident of Abu Road) and Narendra Singh Rajpurohit for the murder. After registration of the FIR, investigation was undertaken. 4. The eye-witnesses, namely, Pradeep Singh, Vijendra singh, Pratap Singh (tea stall owner) and Abid could not identify the assailants. The Investigating Officer claims to have collected evidence to the effect that Bharat Vaishnav's wife Rinku was having an intimate liasion with Kan Singh and the petitioner was enraged thereby and that he had a strong motive to eliminate Kan Singh. The accused petitioner had threatened Kan Singh that he would get him murdered and this apprehension had been shared by Kan Singh with his friend Paras Sompura. 5. Nonetheless Kan Singh continued his illicit liaison with Rinku. As a result and in order to wreak vengeance, the petitioner allegedly engaged the accused Arvind Karan Singh through the accused Ishwar Singh as a hitman to kill Kan singh. 5. Nonetheless Kan Singh continued his illicit liaison with Rinku. As a result and in order to wreak vengeance, the petitioner allegedly engaged the accused Arvind Karan Singh through the accused Ishwar Singh as a hitman to kill Kan singh. A sum of Rs.10 lacs was allegedly paid by the petitioner to Arvind Karan Singh through Ishwar Singh for eliminating Kan Singh. Upon concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner and the aforesaid Ishwar Singh for the offence. Investigation is still pending against Arvind Karan Singh, Dharma @ Dharmesh and Juber S/o Murtaja Khan, who are reported to be absconding. 6. The prosecution has relied upon two sets of evidence to prove its case, viz. (1) The theory of motive that is the grievance of the petitioner because of the illicit relationship of his wife with Kan Singh; and (2) The call detail records. 7. It may be mentioned here that in the 161 CrPC statement of Madan Singh, brother of the deceased, it has categorically been mentioned that in addition to being indulged in an affair with Bharat Vaishnav's wife Rinku, Kan Singh was also having intimate relations with a girl named Ankita Sargara, resident of Abu Road, and the wife of Narendra Singh Rajpurohit. Bharat Vaishnav, his wife Rinku, Ankita and Narendra Singh Rajpurohit were all named as suspects in the FIR. The witness made a conjecture that Narendra Singh could also be responsible for the murder. 8. The Investigating Officer has downloaded and presented the copies of the Whatsapp chats exchanged inter se between Ishwar Singh and Arvind Karan Singh, the absconding accused, (who allegedly murdered Kan Singh); Ishwar Singh and the present petitioner Bharat Vaishnav so as to fortify the allegation of conspiracy. It may be mentioned here that the Investigating Officer has portrayed in the charge-sheet that the conversations, which were exchanged between the petitioner and Ishwar Singh were in code language and on decoding the same, it came to light that Ishwar Singh was the conduit between the petitioner and the main accused Arvind Karan Singh, who was hired as an assassin to murder Kan Singh. 9. Learned counsel Mr. 9. Learned counsel Mr. Umesh Shrimali, representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that the entire prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet that the present petitioner hired assassins (Arvind Karan Singh and another man) for murdering Kan Singh, is totally fictitious and concocted. He urges that the call details of petitioner's mobile number, collected by the Investigating Officer do not indicate that the petitioner was ever in touch with the assassin(s). He further submits that in the Whatsapp chats shown to have taken place between Ishwar Singh and Arvind Karan Singh (Karan Singh Mochhal), there is no direct reference to the name of Bharat Vaishnav, except in one message dated 15.06.2020, which is totally innocuous. The Investigating Officer has tried to make a conjecture that the reference to "the man of Mumbai" in the messages exchanged between Ishwar Singh and Arvind Karan Singh was of Bharat Vaishnav and no one else. However, this inference is totally baseless and conjectural. In the Whatsapp chats exchanged between the present petitioner and Ishwar Singh, there is nothing to imply that the petitioner had conveyed to Ishwar Singh that he was desirous of getting Kan Singh eliminated or that an assassin be engaged for this purpose. 10. Even in the statement of Madan Singh, the first informant and the brother of the deceased, there is a clear assertion that the deceased Kan Singh was intimately involved in extra-marital affairs with more than one married women including including the present petitioner's wife. Thus, the relatives of the other ladies were equally aggrieved and could have gotten Kan Singh eliminated. 11. The bail application preferred by Ishwar Singh [S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14179/2020] has been accepted by the co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 11.12.2020. 12. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, this court is reluctant to pivot on the prosecution's fragile attempt to attribute absolute guilt to the accused petitioner. The facts and circumstances, which include Section 161 CrPC statement of the complainant, call and Whatsapp chat details and the surmise drawn by the Investigating Officer pertaining to the theory of motive does not lead to the decisive culpability of the petitioner Bharat Vaishnav. Thus, there exist well grounded reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail in this case. The facts and circumstances, which include Section 161 CrPC statement of the complainant, call and Whatsapp chat details and the surmise drawn by the Investigating Officer pertaining to the theory of motive does not lead to the decisive culpability of the petitioner Bharat Vaishnav. Thus, there exist well grounded reasons to enlarge the petitioner on bail in this case. However, the observations made hereinabove are confined to this bail matter only and shall not be treated as observations on merits of the case when the case is being decided finally. 13. In this background and having regard to entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that there exist valid and justified reasons so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail during course of trial. 14. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 CrPC is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Bharat Vaishnav S/o Navaldas arrested in connection with F.I.R. No119/2020 registered at the Police Station Falna, District Pali shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- 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.