Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bharat Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3863/2021
Bharat Vaishnav S/o Navaldas, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of
Novi, Police Station Sumerpur Dist. Pali At Present Rajlaxmi
Jwellers Shop No. 42, Parwa Chal, Jaweri Bajar, Mumbai, Room
No. 43 Second Floor Jaidev Building, Dhobi Talab Marine Liens,
Mumbai, Thana Azad Maidan Mumbai (Maharastra). (Presently
Lodged In Sub Jail, Bali).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.
Mr. Sikandar Khan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order
Date of pronouncement : 09/04/2021
Judgment reserved on : 06/04/2021
BY THE COURT :
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.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(2 of 6) [CRLMB-3863/2021]
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.
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.
(3 of 6) [CRLMB-3863/2021]
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.
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.
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.
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
(4 of 6) [CRLMB-3863/2021]
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.
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.
(5 of 6) [CRLMB-3863/2021]
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section
439 CrPC is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner
(6 of 6) [CRLMB-3863/2021]
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.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
3-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
