Rajasthan High Court
Niraj Nigotiya Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4445/2021
Niraj Nigotiya Son Of Shri Brajbhan, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Khedali Gurjar P.s - Sadar Hindon Presently Residing
At 56, Jabdamba Colony, Agra Road, Paldi Meena, Jaipur -
302031 (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4855/2021
Santosh Son Of Sumer Singh Gurjar, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of Jagdishpura, Police Station Balghat, Tehasil
Todabheem, District Karoli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P., Jaipur.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. M. M. Ranjan,
Sr. Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajat Ranjan
with Mr. J. K. Moolchandani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP.
Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
05/08/2021
1. The present anticipatory bail applications have been filed
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.373/2018
registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for the
offence(s) under Sections 279, 336, 307, 302 and 120B IPC.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4445/2021]
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have been
wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioners have also joined the
investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that deceased
Neetu was subjected to honour killing by her family. Name of the
petitioners are wrongly mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for
the petitioners submits that deceased Neetu fell in love affairs
with Neeraj Nagotiya but her family was not happy with this
relationship. So, family members of Neetu were responsible for
honour killing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners were not present at the time of incident as they were
in Jaipur. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgments in Ganpat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan; Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3988/2017, Shobha Ram
Vs. State of U.P.; Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application
No.9784/1991, Yunis and Anr. Vs. State of U.P.; Criminal
Miscellaneous 1st Bail Application No.4937/1998, Raghbir
Singh @ Lucky and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab; Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.25848/2020.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioners and submitted that Neeraj Nagotiya
and co-accused had deliberately hit to the deceased Neetu and her
brother by Scorpio when they were reached near the temple of
Morgya Baba. After that incident, Neetu died on 20.11.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that eye
witnesses namely, Arvind, Suresh and Lokesh clearly stated the
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4445/2021]
story in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned
counsel for the complainant also submitted that Narpat Singh in
his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that
Neeraj Nagotiya and his friends had deliberately hit to the
deceased Neetu Gurjar when she was going with her brother on
motor-cycle. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, anticipatory
bail application be dismissed.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for both the parties. Looking to the gravity of the offence
and allegation levelled against the petitioners, I do not consider it
a fit case to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
7. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/23-24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
