Rajasthan High Court
Karandeepshyoran Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1806/2022
Karandeepshyoran Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh Shyoran, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of House No. 1115, Sector 16-17,
Hisar Police Station, Civil Line, District Hisar, Presently Tenant At
Flat No. 8B, Tower-2, M3M Golf Estate, Sector 65, Gurgaon,
Police Station Sector 65, Gurgaon ( Presently Confined In Central
Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukul Rohtgi, Sr. Counsel with
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta,
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Saini,
Mr. Pramod Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini,
Mr. Ghan Shyam Singh Rathore, GA-
Cum-AAG,
Mr. Bhanwar Singh Chouhan,
Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan,
Mr. Santosh Singh, Mr. Bhanu Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
08/07/2022
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR
No.318/2021 Registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur
City (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 120B IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioner is behind the
bars since 03.09.2021. Chargesheet has been filed against the
petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-1806/2022]
no connecting evidence against the petitioner regarding alleged
offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no motive
and intentions of the petitioner is proved by the material collected
during investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that as per FSL report, pistol recovered from the co-accused were
not used in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also
submits that allegation of prosecution is that petitioner and
deceased has enmity but letters written by deceased reveals that
there is no enmity between the petitioner and deceased rather
deceased appreciated the work done by petitioner and also made
recommendation for extension of time. Learned counsel for the
petitioner also submits that present FIR was lodged after
inordinate delay of 12 hours. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that eye witness Trilok in his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that he had not recognized any
person. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that nothing
was recovered from the petitioner. Conclusion of trial may take
long time. So, petitioner be enlarged on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the
complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is
Managing Director of M/s E-5 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. He had got
contract to build bridge and deceased was engineer in URS Scott
Willson India Pvt. Ltd. Deceased has duty to supervise the work
and give return to NHAI. Learned Public Prosecutor has also
submitted that petitioner wants to change the design of bridge
and he wants to build double span bridge instead of single span
and as per correspondence, deceased had refused to accept the
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-1806/2022]
proposal of petitioner and recommended to withheld crores of
rupees of the petitioner's company. Learned counsel for the
complainant also submitted that during investigation CCTV
footage, call details and documentary evidence collected by
Investigating Officer that clearly reveals that petitioner and other
co-accused hatched conspiracy to kill the petitioner. And they
hired professional shooter. Professional shooter were brought on
the spot and they had shot the deceased. So, looking to the
gravity of the offence, the bail be dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance
upon the following judgments: (1) Anil Kumar Yadav & Ors.
Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi and Ors. reported in (2018) 12SCC
129 (2) State of U.P. Through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi
with State of U.P. Through CBI Vs. Madhumani Tripathi
reported in (2005) 8 SCC 21 (3) Jaswant Raj Soni Vs.
Prakash Mal with Jabar Lal Vs. Kan Mal reported in (2005) 8
SCC 38 (4) The State of Orrissa and Ors. Vs. Mahimananda
Mishra and Ors. reported in 2018(3)UC 2234 (5) Mamta Nair
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in Criminal Appeal
No.586 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.3679 of 2021)
(6) Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini Vs. State of Rajasthan
through PP. reported in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.3255/2022 (7) Shubham @ Golu Vs. State of
Rajasthan through PP. reported in S.B. Criminal
Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4091/2022.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the complainant.
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-1806/2022]
6. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had got the
contact to build bridge from NHAI. Deceased was AE in URS Scott
Willson India Pvt. Ltd. Work of deceased was to supervise and
monitor the construction and give his report to NHAI.
Investigating Officer collected the various correspondence done by
the petitioner and deceased. A perusal of correspondence reveals
that deceased was not happy by working of petitioner's company
and he had recommended to withheld the crores of rupees and
also not approved the design of bridge which petitioner wanted to
construct. Petitioner wanted to remove deceased from his way.
So, petitioner and other person hatched a conspiracy and engaged
professional shooter and provide them pistol and cartridge to
shoot deceased. Investigating Officer collected ample evidence
against the petitioner as well as other co-accused. So, looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case without going to the
merit, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on
bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Seema/12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
