Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 633 (RAJ)

Vikash Banjara v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-06

FARJAND ALI

body2025
ORDER : FARJAND ALI, J. 1. These three matters have been preferred by the petitioners seeking bail in the case arising out of FIR No. 419/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 325 and 341/149 of IPC. While the petitioner Sagar has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioners Vikash and Kanha have preferred appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 12.11.2024 whereby the criminal appeal was dismissed by this Court. 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-applicant that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their 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-applicant and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 3. Contrary to submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State opposes the bail application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. I have also gone through the statements of PW-3 Smt Pinky Bai, PW-6 Smt. Saira, PW-7 Smt. Maya @ Malan besides the others. 5. After going through testimonies of the witnesses examined so far so also taking into account the fact that assault was made by the petitioners reflects that the nature and severity of the offence committed in the present case are of the gravest kind. The accused persons, acting in a premeditated and coordinated manner, launched a violent attack using deadly weapons, including a knife, sword, and iron rods, with the clear intention of causing fatal injuries. The assault resulted in multiple grievous injuries to the victims, including fractures and head injuries, and ultimately led to the death of Roop Singh. He was evacuated to a nearest hospital and then to a higher center but could not survive. The site memo is revealing splattering of blood. The eye witness is available on record in an unequivocal and unambiguous term, with sinuosity upon the petitioner. Their presence and active participation in the incident is a writ large. The involvement of multiple assailants in restraining and attacking the victims further aggravates the seriousness of the crime. The site memo is revealing splattering of blood. The eye witness is available on record in an unequivocal and unambiguous term, with sinuosity upon the petitioner. Their presence and active participation in the incident is a writ large. The involvement of multiple assailants in restraining and attacking the victims further aggravates the seriousness of the crime. The use of lethal weapons, the nature of injuries inflicted, and the death of the victim establish that the offence is of a heinous and brutal nature, falling within the category of grave and serious crimes. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has vehemently and fervently argued in favor of the release of the petitioners, particularly contending the specific role and overt act of the petitioners. However, after minutely going through the material collected during the investigation and the evidence brought on record in the trial, I am of the opinion that, as of today, sufficient material exists to invoke the common object of all the accused in the commission of the crime. Therefore, they can all be held vicariously liable for the consequences of the assault. When the trial is ongoing, any remark on minor discrepancies or even contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses is not supposed to be given weight when there is no conflict in the evidence regarding their active participation in the crime. In view of this, as the trial is still in progress, I do not wish to comment on the finer details of the matter. However, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal bar imposed by the statute, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the instant second bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. as well as appeals under Section 14-A(2) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are dismissed.