Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rooparam @ Roopkishore vs State on 13 January, 2022
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR.
...
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 100/2022
Rooparam alias Roopkishore son of Shri Gangaram, aged about
23 Years, Resident of Meharaniyon Ki Dhani, Village Lukhu, Tehsil
Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Jalore).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 101/2022
Paramveer Singh son of Shri Shiv Singh, aged about 29 years,
Resident of Railway Station Colony, Jalore, Police Station
Kotwali, Jalore, District Jalore.
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Jalore).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 103/2022
Rajaram son of Shri Lokaram, aged about 24 years, Resident of
Siyana, Police Station Bagra, District Jalore.
(Presently lodged at District Jail, Jalore).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
(2 of 5) [CRLMB-100/2022]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kanti Lal Thakur through video
conferencing.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. Anil Joshi, GA-cum-AAG.
Mr. Sikander Khan, for the
complainant through video
conferencing.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order
13/01/2022
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, as per guidelines,
lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts,
therefore, hearing of the matters is being taken up only through
video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners appearing through
video conferencing, learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person
as well as learned counsel for the complainant appearing through
video conferencing. Perused the material available on record.
The present bail applications have been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioners, who are in judicial custody
in connection with F.I.R. No. 513/2021, Police Station Kotwali,
Jalore, District Jalore, registered for the offences under Sections
295, 295(A) & 153(A)/120-B of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that as per
prosecution, the incident in question has been taken place on
07.12.2021 whereas, the FIR has been after a delay of four days,
i.e., on 11.12.2021; that there is no explanation for the delay
(3 of 5) [CRLMB-100/2022]
caused in filing the FIR; that the accused-petitioners were
implicated in this case on the basis of CCTV footage in which, only
the accused Rajaram and Rooparam are visible with "Lathi"; that
the accused Praramveer Singh was implicated in this case on the
suspicion being created on the basis of the post of accused on
social media; that in fact, on the date of incident, the accused
Paramveer Singh was not available in the city of Jalore; that there
is no inter se connection between the accused-petitioners,
Rooparam, Rajaram and Paramveer Singh; that the alleged
offences are triable by the Magistrate; that no investigation or
recovery is pending against the accused-petitioners; that the
accused-petitioners are behind the bars for more than one month;
that the accused-petitioners were earlier arrested in connection
with the proceedings initiated under Section 107 read with Section
151 Cr.P.C. and after release in the proceedings, as above, they
have been arrested in connection with the present case; and that
the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to
the accused-petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
Mr. Sikaner Khan appearing on behalf of the complainant through
video conferencing have vehemently and fervently opposed the
bail application of the accused-petitioners and stated that two to
three Majars/Dargahs were destroyed by the accused-petitioners;
that as per the photographs submitted by the learned counsel for
the complainant, in one photograph, it seems that some people
are conducting meeting of conspiracy, in another photograph,
some of the people are seen with the "lathies"; that there is one
post on social media posted by the accused Paramveer Singh by
(4 of 5) [CRLMB-100/2022]
which, he has instigated/provoked the people for destroying the
religious structure, i,.e., Majars and Dargahs, therefore, there is
pirma facie evidence available against the accused persons for the
offence punishable under Sections 295 and 153(A) of the Indian
Penal Code. Learned counsel for the complainant further stated
that earlier, 11 cases have been registered against the accused
Paramveer Singh; that there is no earlier case against the accused
Rajaram and Rooparam, therefore, benefit of bail may not be
granted to the accused-petitioners.
In reply, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners stated
that in 5 cases, the accused Paramveer Singh was acquitted and in
none of the cases, the accused Paramveer Singh has been
convicted earlier; that as per decision rendered by Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648, it has
been held that benefit of bail cannot be refused on the basis of
pendency of the cases. He further stated that the cases earlier
registered against the accused Paramveer Singh are not identical
to the present case.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly looking to the facts that except the "lathies" in the
hands of two-three persons, there is no other weapon or
instruments in the hands of persons by which, structure made by
stones or iron can be destroyed; that the alleged offences are
triable by the First Class Magistrate; that the accused-petitioners
are behind the bars for more one month; that no recovery or
investigation is pending against the accused-petitioners; that as
(5 of 5) [CRLMB-100/2022]
per law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the judgment,
as referred above and as cited by the learned counsel for the
accused-petitioners and other similar nature judgments, only on
the basis of the pendency of the cases, bail cannot be rejected;
and that the 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
petitioners deserve to be accepted.
Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered
that the petitioners, Rooparam @ Roopkishore S/o Gangaram
(Bail Application No. 100/2022), Paramveer Singh S/o Shiv
Singh (Bail Application No. 101/2022) and Rajaram S/o
Lokaram (Bail Application No. 103/2022), all arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No. 513/2021, Police Station Kotwali, Jalore,
District Jalore, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other
case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- 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.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
89-90-91-Mohan/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
