Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 992 (RAJ)

DINESH v. STATE of RAJASTHAN

2025-04-02

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
Order : (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) These applications for bail under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.190/2023 registered at Police Station Reserve Centre Purani Aabadi, Dist. Sri Ganganagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution, on 03.10.2020 at around 12:14 P.M., the complainant – Ishaq Mohammad received a call from one Rajendra informing him that Babar Sohel was unwell and he along with Ali Haidar and Pramod took him to Tatia Hospital. As per the prosecution, son of the complainant – Babar Sohel died while undergoing treatment at the hospital. 3. In the marg (report), the complainant i.e. the father of the deceased Babar Sohel stated that Babar Sohel was a drug addict and he had died due to overdose of the drug and therefore, his body may be handed over to him for his final rites without reporting the incident to police or conducting post-mortem thereupon. 4. As per the prosecution, after the final rites of the deceased-Babar Sohel were done, the complainant submitted a report dated 11.10.2020 at P.S. Purani Abadi, Sri Ganganagar that his son Babar Sohel had been killed by the present petitioners i.e Dinesh and Arun Godhara by making him consume some poisonous substance and therefore, appropriate criminal proceedings be initiated against them. The police after receiving application/report dated 11.10.2020, conducted postmortem of the body of the deceased which was exhumed from its grave. The medial jurists at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar after conducing postmortem of the deceased kept its opinion reserved till receiving of the FSL and Histopathology Examination Report for which visceras were reserved. The police during the course of the investigation in pursuance of voluntary information divulged by the petitioner- Arun Godara also recovered one plastic syringe with needle from the residence of petitioner Arun Godara and sent it for FSL examination. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner on 25.03.2021 prepared FSL report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. indicating presence of Organosphorus Insecticide in the body of the deceased but gave negative tests for the presence of Metallic Poisons, Cyanide, Alkaloids, Barbiturates, Tranquillizers and Pesticides on plastic syringe and needle recovered from the house of the petitioner Arun Godara. The Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bikaner on 25.03.2021 prepared FSL report admissible under Section 293 Cr.P.C. indicating presence of Organosphorus Insecticide in the body of the deceased but gave negative tests for the presence of Metallic Poisons, Cyanide, Alkaloids, Barbiturates, Tranquillizers and Pesticides on plastic syringe and needle recovered from the house of the petitioner Arun Godara. The medial jurists at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar on the basis of the FSL report dated 25.03.2021 in the final opinion dated 23.05.2023 given by him with regard to cause of death of the deceased Babar Sohel stated that ‘cause of death of Babar Sohel was Organosphorus poisoning’. 5. The police after receiving final opinion from the medial jurists at Government Hospital, Sri Ganganagar dated 23.05.2023 lodged an FIR dated 18.07.2023 against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC and arrested them for murdering the deceased Babar Sohel. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case and that they had no motive to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners after more than three years of the death of Babar Sohel have been arrested by the Investigating Agency only on the basis of suspicion without there being any credible and cogent evidence available on record against them. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, on the date of alleged incident, the petitioners themselves informed Rajendra that the deceased was not feeling well and thereafter took him to hospital with Rajendra, Ali Haidar and Pramod etc. Learned counsel further contended that had the petitioners committed the alleged crime, they would have not taken the deceased to the hospital for treatment. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that during the course of the investigation, the Investigating Agency has recovered one plastic syringe with needle from the house of petitioner Arun Godara which was sent for FSL. The FSL report of the plastic syringe with needle gave negative tests for the presence of metallic poisons, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates, tranquillizers and pesticides thus, the conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency that the petitioner Dinesh administered poisonous injection to the deceased falls flat on its face. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners. 8. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners. The investigation against them has already been concluded; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications. 10. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate complicity of the petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that at the time when marg (report) under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was lodged by the complainant that is the father of the deceased, he was in a state of shock and therefore, he could not comprehend that his son could be murdered by the petitioners. However, later on, when he realized that his son had not died due to overdose of drug, he submitted an application/report dated 11.10.2020 at the concerned police station with a request to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioners. The postmortem of the deceased was thereafter conducted and the viscera collected from the stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, lungs, skin with muscle from left cubical region, hairs from scalp etc. were sent for FSL examination. The FSL report dated 23.05.2021 indicates that the chemical examination of visceras gave positive tests for the presence of Organophosphorous Insecticide and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturates and tranquillizers. 11. Learned counsel submitted that admittedly, not only the deceased was last seen in the company of the present petitioners but also the witness Shri Ali Haidar who took the deceased Babar Sohel to the hospital with Rajendra and Pramod in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that at the time when he reached to the house of petitioner- Arun Godara, Babar Sohel was laying on a cot and he had foam dripping from his mouth. Babar Sohel was murmuring that the petitioners had given him something to drink, due to which his condition had worsened. 12. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to reject the present bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Babar Sohel was murmuring that the petitioners had given him something to drink, due to which his condition had worsened. 12. On these grounds, learned counsel implored the Court to reject the present bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 14. The conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency after making investigation in relation to FIR No.190/2023, lodged against the petitioners for the offences under Section 302 and 34 IPC reads as under:- 15. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the petitioners have been arrested after more than three years from the date of alleged incident; the case against the petitioners is based on circumstantial evidence; complainant in the marg (report) dated 03.10.2020 stated that his son use to take drugs and on 03.10.2024 he had died due to overdose of drugs; as per the Investigating Agency, petitioner Dinesh brought pesticides used in commission of alleged crime from one Vikas Sales Corporation. However, one Kamal who sits in the aforesaid shop in his statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. stated that he doesn’t have any information/knowledge about the purchase of insecticide from his shop; Rajendra and Dinesh Kumar who had taken deceased – Babar Sohel to the hospital alongwith the present petitioners and Ishaq Mohammad in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not state that at the time when deceased was taken to the hospital he was murmuring that ‘the petitioners had given him something to drink, due to which his condition has worsened’. In other words, the statements of Ishaq Khan are not corroborated by the statements of these witnesses; the empty plastic syringe with needle allegedly used by the petitioners for administrating injection to the deceased gave negative results for the presence of poison/pesticides. Prima facie, this Court finds a large number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution story. 16. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioners are in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners. The investigation against them has already been concluded; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Prima facie, this Court finds a large number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution story. 16. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioners are in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioners. The investigation against them has already been concluded; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. Learned Public Prosecutor has not shown any apprehension of the petitioners influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case, they are enlarged on bail. 17. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. 18. Consequently, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Dinesh S/o Shri Madan Prakash and (2) Arun Godhara S/o Badriram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.190/2023 registered at Police Station Reserve Centre Purani Aabadi, Dist. Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 19. 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. 20. A copy of this order be placed in each file.