Rajasthan High Court
Rakesh @ Kalla S/O Raminwas vs The State Of Rajasthan on 22 July, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
10476/2021
Rakesh @ Kalla S/o Raminwas, Aged About 19 Years, R/o
Purabaikheda Ps Rudawal Tehsil Bayana Dist. Bharatpur (At
Present Confined In Sub Jail Bayana Dist. Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
10594/2021
Vishvendra Singh @ Vissu S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village
Purabaikheda Police Station Rudawal Tehsil Bayana District
Bharatpur (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bayana District
Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Chand Yadav & Mr.
Yogesh Singhal present in the Court
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP
Investigating Officer : Mr. Manish Sharma, Sub-Inspector
P.S. Rudawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
22/07/2021
1. Defect/s pointed out by the Registry in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No10594/2021 is/are waived.
2. Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10476/2021]
439 Cr.P.C.
3. F.I.R. No.87/2021 was registered at Police Station Rudawal,
District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
341, 302 I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 25 of Arms Act.
4. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-Rakesh that
petitioner is only friend of petitioner-Vishvendra Singh. Vishvendra
Singh was at his residence at the time when the alleged offence is
said to have been committed. It is also contended that nine
persons were named in the F.I.R. Police has given clean chit and
has implicated the petitioners.
5. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner-Vishvendra
Singh that there is no reason why petitioner would murder his own
father. As per the statement of brother of petitioner, petitioner was
at the residence when the complainant called the petitioner that
he has received a call that some untoward incident has taken
place with the father of petitioner-Vishvendra Singh. It is also
contended that no blood stained clothes were recovered to
establish that petitioners were involved in the offence of murder.
6. Investigating Officer is present in person in the Court.
7. It is informed by Investigating Officer that a false case has
been registered by the complainant, mentioning therein that he
received a call from the deceased at 7-7:30 pm on 08.02.2021,
whereas from the call made from the mobile, it is evident that no
call was made by the deceased to the complainant, rather
complainant called at 7:43 pm on the number of the deceased. It
is also contended that there was some dispute pending between
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10476/2021]
the persons named in the F.I.R. and the deceased. It is further
contended that the deceased was owing money to many persons.
Petitioner-Vishvendra Singh murdered his own father to implicate
other persons with whom he has property dispute. It is contended
that the weapon of offence has been recovered from the
petitioner-Vishvendra Singh and the gun shot injury is caused by
the weapon which is recovered from the petitioner-Vishvendra
Singh. It is also contended that the petitioner-Rakesh switched off
his mobile from 6:45 pm to 7:15 pm, the approximate time when
the offence was committed. Mobile location of Vishvendra Singh is
at the place of occurrence. It is further contended that both the
petitioners were involved in the commission of the alleged offence.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed these bail
applications.
9. I have considered the contentions.
10. Considering the contentions put forth by Investigating Officer
and counsel for the State, I am not inclined to entertain these bail
applications.
11. These bail applications are, accordingly, dismissed.
12. A copy of this order be placed in connected file.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /32-33
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
