Bhagwanaram Khokhar S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 125 Raj/2

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.
                              15866/2020

Bhagwanaram Khokhar S/o Shri Bhuraram Khokhar, Aged About
51 Years, R/o Vill. Mordunga Ps Losal Dist. Sikar Raj. (At Present
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehla through VC For Complainant(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra through VC For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

07/01/2021

1. Petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.235/2017 was registered at Police Station Karni

Vihar, District Jaipur West (Rajasthan) for offence under Sections

452, 302, 120-B I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is

the resident of the same village as that of Jeevan Ram. Petitioner

has no connection whatsoever with the offence. There is no

evidence against the petitioner of threatening the deceased or

wife of deceased. Petitioner is a retired employee from RAC.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant

have opposed the third bail application. It is contended that

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-15866/2020]

petitioner arranged for the shooters. Initially he engaged one

Ravindra Singh, thereafter Ravindra Singh refused to be engaged.

Thereafter, Ramdevaram was engaged for Rs.3,00,000/-. After the

incident, Ramdevaram took Rs.50,000/- from the petitioner. It is

also contended that photographs of deceased were made available

by the petitioner to Ramdevaram. There was continuous

telephonic conversation amongst petitioner, co-accused-

Jeevanram, shooter-Ramdevaram and other co-accused Vinod.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the

State and counsel for the complainant, I am not inclined to

entertain the third bail application.

7. This third bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /51

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)