Shivraj Singh vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 12766 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

....

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14461/2020

Shivraj Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, by caste Rajput, aged about 49 years, R/o Adarsh Colony, Khedaliya Fatak, Main Road, Kota (Rajasthan).

(Lodged In District Jail, Bharatpur).

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Shambhoo Singh with
                               Mr. Hitendra Singh.
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Farzand Ali, GA-cum-AAG with
                               Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP.



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA

                                    Order

16/08/2021

The present bail application has been filed under Section 439

Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in

connection with F.I.R. No. 56/2011, Police Station Bijoliya, District

Bhilwara, registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341,

323, 332, 353, 307, 302 & 102-B of the Indian Penal Code.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that PW-2 Anurag,

PW-3 Surendra Gautam, PW-4 Brijendra Singh, PW-5 Vikram

Singh S/o Laxman Singh, PW-6 Vikram Singh S/o Prithvi Raj

Singh, PW-11 Ravi, P-12 Hitesh, PW-13 Vicky, PW-18 Bhanwar Lal,

PW-28 Mukesh, PW-29 Prem Singh, PW-31 Sanjay and PW-35

(2 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

Manoj Yadav have not supported the story of the prosecution and

as such they have declared hostile by the learned Trial Court; that

the story of the prosecution has not been proved by any of the

eye-witnessess; that PW-30 Surendra Solanki has admitted that

the clothes are not available/present before the Court today; that

PW-36 Ram Kishore, motbir of the recovery memo of persons,

who is not an independent witness, stated that it is an admitted

position that all these memos are prepared at MBS Hospital, Kota

and at every time, there were number of patients and their

attendants were available in that Hospital; that PW-48 Dr. Vitthal

Bhardwaj admitted that the injuries caused to Bherulal may be

injures of any road accident, such type of injuries may be caused

in any road accident; that all the witnesses present at the spot

(crime scene) categorically stated that, " yxHkx 10 ls 15 vkneh jkbZQy] fiLVy] 12 cksj oxsjk ls Qk;j djrs vk;s vkSj mUgksaus xkMh dks pkjks rjQ ls ?ksj fy;k tokc esa gekjs daekMksa us Qk;j fd;s ftlls ,d dkcZu ls Qk;j ugha gks ik;k o ckgj ls vkokt vk jghs Fkh ekjks&ekjks A^^ Learned counsel further stated that there is no specific allegation against the accused-petitioner;

that the accused-petitioner has not been identified at the spot or

even thereafter; that there are material contradictions in the

statements of the prosecution witnesses; that Mohammed Salim

(PW-1) admitted that due to darkness, he cannot identified any of

the accused and he was not sure that the person identified by him

in the Court was present at the spot or not; that Bheru Lal, who

was the in-charge of the police team, has wrongly identified the

accused in the Court, he identified accused Giriraj Singh as Allu @

Arvind, identified accused Allu @ Arvind Singh as Shivraj Singh,

the present petitioner as also has wrongly identified accused

Giriraj Singh as Allu @ Arvind Singh; that PW-7 Bheru Lal also

(3 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

admitted that, ^^ikjlksyh Fkkus dk tkIrk gesa dksVqUnk eksM ls vkxs rd LdkWV fd;kA ;g lgh gS fd ikjlkssyh ds mijkUr dksVqUnk eksM] eSuky] vkjksyh] fctksft;ka ds Fkkuksa dk {ks=kf/kdkj vkrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ikjlksyh Fkkus dh lhek lekIr gksus ds mijkUr ?kVuk ?kVhr gqbZ rc rd fdlh Hkh Fkkus dh LdkWV ugha FkhA^^ This witness further stated that he did not inform any of the concerned

Police Station in this regard because there was no wireless

network and did not inform through mobile of any person; that on

the contrary, PW-16 Kanti Lal, driver of the pick-up van stated

that information in regard to escort had been sent by Bheru Lal.

This witness Kanti Lal further stated that he identified the

accused-petitioner on the basis of guess work. Learned counsel

stated that as per the statement of PW-9 Prem Singh and PW-10

Shabbir Mohammed stated that, when they reached at the spot

after arrival of the police party, two persons came after 15

minutes and upon asking, they stated that when firing was

started, they ran away from the spot, one of them was the

Incharge of that police party and another was the driver of the

pick-up van and, therefore, the statement of incharge Bheru Lal

and driver are false. Learned counsel stated that in these

circumstances, the statement of Bheru Lal is not reliable; that

there were 127 witnesses in the list of witnesses and out of 127

witnesses, only 85 witnesses have been examined till date,

meaning thereby, that 42 witnesses are yet to be examined.

Learned counsel also stated that the accused-petitioner is behind

the bars since 05.09.2011 (approx. 10 years); and that further

trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the

accused-petitioner.

In support of his contention that, the accused cannot be kept

behind the bars for indefinite time, learned counsel for the

(4 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

accused-petitioner has referred and relied upon the

judgment/order 01.02.2021 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court

rendered in the case of Union of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb and

Order dated 27.07.2021 rendered in the case of Paras Ram

Vishnoi Vs. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that while

relying on the order dated 27.07.2021 passed in Paras Ram

Vishnoi's case (supra), co-ordinate Bench/s of this Court has given

the benefit of bail to the accused persons, namely, Ashok S/o

Bansi Lal, vide order dated 10.08.2021 (4 th Bail Application No.

10534/2021), Om Prakash S/o Mohan Ram, vide order dated

10.08.2021 (4th Bail Application No. 10533/2021), Sahi Ram, vide

order dated 10.08.2021 (Bail Application No,. 10156/2021),

Umesha Ram S/o late Fagluram Bishnoi, vide order dated

10.08.2021 (Bail Application No. 8316/2021).

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner stated that the

benefit of bail has already been granted by the co-ordinate Bench/

s of this Court to the co-accused persons, namely, Arun Kumar

Gautam vide order dated 12.12.2012 (Bail Application No.

3105/2012), Alu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 31.05.2012

(Bail Application No. 3997/2012), Giriraj Singh vide order dated

22.08.2013 (Bail Application No. 3994/2013), Harendra Singh vide

order dated 03.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1056/2014), Kanhai

Singh vide order dated 04.02.2014 (Bail Application No.

1194/2014), Arun Kumar vide order dated 17.02.2014 (Bail

Application No. 1370/2014), Moni Tomar @ Virendra Pratap Singh

vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application No. 1793/2014),

Arjun Singh @ Monu vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail Application

No. 1794/2014), Mukesh vide order dated 21.02.2014 (Bail

(5 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

Application No. 1795/2014), Dinesh vide order dated 07.03.2014

(Bail Application No. 2209/2014), Sandeep @ Monti vide order

dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No. 2530/2014), Sarvesh

Singh vide order dated 02.04.2014 (Bail Application No.

2794/2014), Allu @ Arvind Singh vide order dated 16.05.2014

(Bail Application No. 3894/2014), Shirvaj Singh vide order dated

17.09.2015 (Bail Application No. 6343/2015), Sachin Singh vide

order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11914/2015), Ajju @

Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application

No. 11915/2015), Niru Kushwah @ Narendra Pratap Singh vide

order dated 16.12.2015 (Bail Application No. 11917/2015), Allu @

Arvind Singh vide order dated 25.01.2017 (Bail Application No.

7226/2016), Ajju @ Ajay Pratap Singh vide order dated

19.07.2017 (Bail Application No.2257/2017), Suresh Jain @

Puchhi vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail Application No.

9196/2017), Suraj Singh vide order dated 21.11.2017 (Bail

Application No. 10470/2017), Shivraj Singh vide order dated

07.02.2018 (Bail Application No. 1301/2018), Giriraj Singh vide

order dated 22.08.2019 (Bail Application No. 8472/2018), Suraj

Singh vide order dated 30.01.2019 (Bail Application No.

10651/2018), Suraj Singh vide order dated 22.08.2019 (Bail

Application No. 5872/2019), Suraj Singh vide order dated

03.12.2020 (Bail Application No. 11995/2020), Kanhai Singh vide

order dated 29.03.2013 (Bail Application No. 466/2013).

Per contra, learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional

Advocate General Mr. Farzand Ali assisted by the learned Public

Prosecutor Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan have vehemently and fervently

opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated

that the accused-petitioner is one of the hardcore gangster; that

(6 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

one another First Information Report, being FIR No. 599/2019 has

been registered at R.K. Puram Police Station, Kota by a lady

wherein, allegation to the effect, that the present accused-

petitioner is running his gang from jail and the accused-petitioner

is responsible for the murder of her husband.

Learned GA-cum-AAG admitted that the co-accused in that

case namely, Ajju, has already been granted benefit of bail. He

further stated that the story of the prosecution has fully been

supported by the statements of the Bheru Lal and Kanti Lal and

other witnesses. Learned GA-cum-AAG Mr. Farzand Ali prays for

imposing the condition of furnishing heavy bail bonds and

condition regarding marking presence of the accused-petitioner

before the concerned Police Station in last week of every month

until decision of the case by the Trial Court.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly looking to the facts that as per the prosecution that

10-15 persons came on the spot and started firing; that there is

no specific allegation against the accused-petitioner; that the

accused-petitioner has not been identified by any of the

witnesses; that there are discrepancies in the statement of the

prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the learned counsel for

the petitioner; that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since

approximately 10 years; that further having regard to the

observations as made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, as referred

hereinabove; that further trial will take sufficiently long time,

therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits

of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications

filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

(7 of 7) [CRLMB-14461/2020]

Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered

that the petitioner, Shivraj Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh,

arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 56/2011, Police Station

Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail, if not wanted

in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs only) with two sound and solvent

surety bonds of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs only) (both the

sureties shall be furnished by the blood relatives/close relatives of

the accused-petitioner) 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.

As requested by the learned Government Advocate-cum-

Additional Advocate General Mr. Farzand Ali and in the interest of

justice, the accused-petitioner is directed to mark his attendance

in the jurisdictional Police Station in which his residential area

falls, in the last week of every month till the final decision of the

case by the Trial Court.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 1-Mohan/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)