Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 359 (RAJ)

Puneet Bishnoi S/o Alfaram v. State Of Rajasthan

2024-02-27

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2024
ORDER : 1. These applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.79/2022, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagaur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 365, 302, 120B and 212 IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that petitioners have not been named in the FIR. The specific allegation of beating the deceased - Narpat with lathis and sarias (iron rods) have been levelled against co-accused persons namely Raju Nethad, Ravindra Nethad, Dhannaram, Ramprasad Sangwa @ Rebel, Jagdish and Kaluram. It was fervently submitted that petitioner-Bhanwar Lal has been roped in the present case solely on the basis of the statements of one Dalip Singh @ Kanaram recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C, who was allegedly present at the place of incident. 4. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased -Narpat was kidnapped and brutally assaulted/beaten by Raju Nethad, Ravindra Nethad, Dhannaram, Ramprasad Sangwa @ Rebel, Jagdish and Kaluram. The deceased was thereafter thrown outside Tarnau Hospital at about 10:30 PM. One Laxman Ram S/o Chennaram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C stated that he had seen the above named co-accused persons and the present petitioner-Puneet throwing the deceased outside the Tarnau Hospital. 5. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that there are grave contradictions in the statements of the eye witnesses of the incident which make the allegation of the involvement of the petitioners in the present case highly doubtful. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the statements of eyewitnesses Shrawan Ram (complainant), Dilip Singh and Laxman Ram are taken on their face value, then also, it would reveal that Shrawan Ram (complainant) who was present at the place of incident has not shown the presence of the petitioners at the place of incident. The eye witness Dilip Singh, in his statements, though has shown presence of the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal at the place of incident but does not mention the name of the petitioner-Puneet as one of the assailants. The eye witness Dilip Singh, in his statements, though has shown presence of the petitioner-Bhanwar Lal at the place of incident but does not mention the name of the petitioner-Puneet as one of the assailants. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner-Puneet has been named for the first time by witness Laxman Ram. It was submitted that the petitioners did not participate in the murder of the deceased-Narpat. Apart from the statements of interested witnesses and eye witnesses of the case, there is no incriminating material available on record indicating complicity of the petitioners in the present case. 6. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused person namely Ramvilas Dhojak @ Kalu who was named in the FIR by the complainant has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.12.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15122/2023. Similarly, Dharmaram Ghosil who was named as an assailant by eye witness-Dilip Singh in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., has also been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12638/2023. Learned counsel submitted that this Court should not deny parity to the petitioners with the other coaccused persons namely Ramesh Siyag, Raja Ram Mirdha, Ramkishore Garva, Narayan Singh and Priyanka @ Pinki who have already been released on bail vide order dated 06.11.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications Nos. 5140/2023, 6157/2023, 6162/2023, 10428/2023 and 11814/2023, respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the strength of submissions advanced, implored the Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. 9. The order dated 24.11.2023 passed in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12638/2023 titled ‘Dharma Ram Ghosil Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr.’ is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- “1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 79/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Jayal 3. District Nagaur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 365, 302 and 120-B of the IPC 5. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 79/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Jayal 3. District Nagaur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 365, 302 and 120-B of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any 325 and 212 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order 29.08.2023 2. None present on behalf of the respondent No.2. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused petitioner and he surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the material made available to this Court revealing that there was a rivalry between the deceased and other party i.e. Ravindra Netad and Raju Netad for which a separate case has also been lodged. In the present FIR, which got lodged at the instance of eye-witness Shrawan Ram, the name of the present petitioner does not find place. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused named in the FIR made an assault over Shrawan Ram and Dilip Singh and they were brutally beaten by them and whereafter both the victims were thrown away outside the Tarnau Hospital. From the perusal of the record it is further revealing that there was no other eye-witness except the complainant Shrawan Ram and no identification parade has been conducted with regard to petitioner. There is an evidence in the form of transcript which exonerate the petitioner. 7. In this view of the matter, since the petitioner is behind the bars since a long and except the present one only one case of accident has been lodged against him. Looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, thus, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Looking to the high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, thus, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. Needless to say, none of the observations made herein under shall affect the rights of either of the parties during trial and this Court refrains from commenting on the niceties of the matter. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.” 10. Similarly, the order dated 19.12.2023 passed in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.15122/2023 in the case of Ramvilas Dhojak @ Kalu Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:- “1. This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with FIR No.79/2022, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagour for the offences under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 365, 302, 120-B & 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after thorough investigation and conclusion, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the present applicant as a conspirator, while not treating him to be an accused person who has murdered the deceased (Narpat Saran). 3. Inviting Court’s attention towards the statement of eye witness Dilip Singh and the statement which the deceased gave before the Police Officer, learned counsel submitted that the deceased (Narpat Saran) had informed that five persons were involved in the offence while the eye witness Dilip Singh has mentioned the names of six persons, in which applicant’s name was not mentioned. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation in relation to applicant’s involvement as a conspirator is also seriously doubtful and simply because the applicant had uploaded some post on the facebook ID that too after a day of the murder, he cannot be held as a conspirator for the offence, when no motive has been established by the prosecution. 5. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation in relation to applicant’s involvement as a conspirator is also seriously doubtful and simply because the applicant had uploaded some post on the facebook ID that too after a day of the murder, he cannot be held as a conspirator for the offence, when no motive has been established by the prosecution. 5. It was also submitted by Mr. Sharma that the applicant had no criminal antecedent. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by contending that the other eye witness namely Shrawan Ram had taken the name of the present applicant (Kalu Ram Dhojak) and submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows that the applicant was a part of the group (gang) which had previous enmity with the deceased for which, they had conspired and brutally murdered him. He added that the fact that on 14.06.2022 before the incident and immediately after the incident, the applicant had posted the obnoxious and offending message in relation to the deceased, the conclusion of the Investigating Officer that he is an active conspirator is well proved. 7. Learned counsel for the applicant in rejoinder submitted that even going by the statement of Shrawan Ram, name of one Kalu Ram Dhojak, resident of Farbodh has been mentioned, whereas the applicant is never known as Kalu Ram, nor has the Investigating Officer brought on record any material or evidence that shows that the applicant is also known as Kalu Ram Dhojak. 8. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the relevant material available on record including the charge-sheet and the statement of eye witnesses. 9. As far as the statement of Shrawan Ram is concerned, he has not mentioned the applicant’s name specifically but he took name of Kalu Ram Dhojak and the prosecution has not brought on record any statement or evidence that shows that the applicant is also known by name of Kalu Ram Dhojak. 10. It is to be noted that the other eye witness namely Dilip Singh has not mentioned the name of the present applicant as a person involved in the murder and even in the conclusion, the Investigating Officer has not indicated applicant’s involvement in the murder. 11. 10. It is to be noted that the other eye witness namely Dilip Singh has not mentioned the name of the present applicant as a person involved in the murder and even in the conclusion, the Investigating Officer has not indicated applicant’s involvement in the murder. 11. So far as the active role of the applicant in commission of murder is concerned, the material produced by the prosecution does not indicate his role in beating and murdering the deceased. 12. On oral appraisal of the facts and materials available on record, this Court is of the view that possibility of the applicant as a conspirator cannot be ruled out. 13. It is to be noted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has enlarged the co-accused Dharma Ram Ghosil on bail vide order dated 24.11.2023, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12638/2023 and the applicant’s role is not different than that of co-accused Dharma Ram Ghosil. 14. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicant under section 439 Cr.P.C. 15. Consequently, the bail application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Ramvilas Dhojak @ Kalu S/o Late Budharam, arrested in connection with FIR No.79/2022, registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagour shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-and two sureties of Rs.25,000/-each to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 16. Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 17. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.” 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.” 12. Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598 has enumerated the following principles to be followed while considering bail applications:- “(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the mater of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.” 13. In the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P and Ors. reported in (2016) 15 SCC 422 , Hon’ble the Apex Court was pleased to observe: “... the grant of bail though involves exercise of discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The heinous nature of crime warrants more caution as there is a greater chance of rejection of bail... 13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society;...” 14. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and after having perused the FIR as well as the challan papers, this Court prima facie finds that essentially the counsel for the petitioners, by placing reliance upon bail orders passed by this Court in the cases of Dharma Ram Ghosil and Ramvilas Dhojak @ Kalu is claiming parity and has submitted that there is no material distinction in the case of the present petitioners and those who have been granted the concession of bail by the co-ordinate Benches of this Court. 15. This Court, after going through the order passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dharma Ram (supra) prima facie finds that co-accused Dharma Ram was enlarged on bail on the ground that only the complainant – Shrawan Ram is an eye-witness of the incident and he had not named the petitioner Dharma Ram as an assailant. Similarly, co-accused Ramniwas Dhojak (supra) was enlarged on bail by coordinate Bench of this Court on the ground that the eye-witness – Dilip Singh in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. had not mentioned the name of the petitioner– Ramniwas Dhojak therein. The coordinate Bench while granting bail to the co-accused Ramniwas Dhojak also took into consideration the fact that though the eyewitness – Shrawan Ram had mentioned the name of Kalu Ram Dhojak, still there was nothing on record to indicate that Ramniwas Dhojak is also known as Kalu Ram Dhojak. The coordinate Bench while granting bail to the co-accused Ramniwas Dhojak also took into consideration the fact that though the eyewitness – Shrawan Ram had mentioned the name of Kalu Ram Dhojak, still there was nothing on record to indicate that Ramniwas Dhojak is also known as Kalu Ram Dhojak. 16. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners in the present bail applications that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case and they deserve to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity is not palpable for the reason that after going through the entire record of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there were two eye-witnesses of the incident namely complainant – Shrawan Ram and Dilip Singh @ Kana Ram. The complainant – Shrawan Ram though in the FIR has not disclosed the name of the present petitioners but in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. he has clearly stated that the deceased was kidnapped and assaulted by the co-accused Raju Netad, Ravindra Netad, Dhanna Ram, Ramprasad Sangwa @ Rebel, Jagdish Batesar, Kalu Ram Dhojak and 1-2 other persons. Similarly, the second eye-witness Dilip Singh in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also stated that he had seen Raju Netad, Ravindra Netad, Ramprasad Sangwa, Dharma Ram Ghoshin, Bhanwara Ram Batesar, Kisna Ram Batesar and 1 -2 other persons at the place of incident. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner Puneet has been named by one Laxman Ram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he has clearly stated that he was present outside the Taranau Hospital, where the deceased was thrown by the accused persons after brutally assaulting/beating him. 17. This Court also prima facie finds that on the basis of the information divulged by accused-petitioners namely Puneet and Bhanwar Lal, under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the investigating agency has got recovered their clothes alongwith shoes containing blood stains and blunt weapons allegedly used by them in commission of the alleged offence. 18. This Court, while considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners beseeching the Court to grant bail on ground of parity, cannot ignore the statements of the eyewitnesses and recoveries which prima facie establish involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. 18. This Court, while considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners beseeching the Court to grant bail on ground of parity, cannot ignore the statements of the eyewitnesses and recoveries which prima facie establish involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the alleged crime. Merely because the eye-witnesses have failed to name all the accused persons together in their initial statements, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same would not be sufficient to discard their statements in entirety. This Court prima facie finds that the police during the course of investigation has found sufficient material and evidence indicating involvement of the present petitioners in the commission of alleged crime. 19. For the aforesaid reasons and looking to the seriousness of the accusations, nature and gravity of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 20. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are dismissed. 21. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same. 22. A copy of this order be placed in each file.