Sunil S/O Rajkumar Koli vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 3192 Raj/2

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
                                 9287/2021

1.        Sunil S/o Rajkumar Koli, R/o Koli Mahaulla, Near Sabji
          Mandi. Ps Achnera, Dist. Agra (Uttar Pradesh), Presently
          Residing At House Of Dhannalal Sharma, Near Moti
          Maharaj    Temple,         Bhoyi        Mahaulla,       Chawani,     Ps
          Gumanpura, Kota City. (Presently Accused Petitioner
          Residing At Kota Jail)
2.        Suresh Kashyap S/o Gopichand Kashyap, R/o Near Moti
          Maharaj    Temple,         Bhoyi        Mahaulla,       Chawani,     Ps
          Gumanpura, Kota City. (Presently Accused Petitioner
          Residing At Kota Jail)
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                     Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur with Mr. Aniruddh Tyagi present in the Court For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

Judgment / Order

27/07/2021

1. Petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C.

2. F.I.R. No.76/2021 was registered at Police Station Udyog

Nagar, Dist. Kota City for offence under Section 302 I.P.C.

3. It is contended by counsels for the petitioners that the only

evidence against the petitioners is some CCTV Footage of the

market. It is argued that the market is a crowded place and to

connect the petitioner on the basis of CCTV Footage has no value.

(2 of 2) [CRLMB-9287/2021]

It is also contended that a Bhamashah Card and a key have been

recovered at the instance of petitioners. Police has not

investigated the matter properly. It is further contended that the

deceased was wearing jewellery and if the purpose is of

committing loot, then petitioners would have taken away the

jewellery which was there at the deceased at the time of the

alleged offence. It is contended that no amount was recovered by

the police from the petitioners.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. It

is contended that there are different CCTV Footages near the place

of occurrence, as per which the petitioners are seen going towards

the house of the deceased and coming after a period of thirty

seven minutes. It is also contended that petitioners after

committing the offence, locked the room from outside and key of

the same has been recovered from the petitioners. It is further

contended that there are different CCTV Footages in which

petitioners are seen at the place of occurrence.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Considering the contentions put forth by counsels for the

State, I am not inclined to entertain the bail application.

7. This bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

ARTI SHARMA /14

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)