Shailendra Singh @ Shyam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 5058 Raj

[2023/RJJD/016524]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 14967/2022

Shailendra Singh @ Shyam Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 19 Sardarshar, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At District Jail, Nagaur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Priyanka Borana.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, P.P.

Mr. Nishant Bora with Mr. Vijay Choudhary

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 19/05/2023 Pronounced on 23/05/2023

1. This criminal misc. fourth bail application under Section 439

Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the Misc. 4th Bail Application U/S 439 Cr.P.C. may kindly be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR

No.76/2020 registered at Police Station Jayal, District Nagour for

the offences under Sections 147, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 & 336

IPC.

3. The first bail application, filed on behalf of the petitioner,

bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9724/2020, was

dismissed as not pressed, by this Court vide order dated

[2023/RJJD/016524] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-14967/2022]

02.11.2020, with liberty to file fresh bail application after

recording of the statement of Mahipal Singh.

3.1. The second bail application preferred on behalf of the present

petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail

Application No.5987/2022, was also dismissed as not pressed, at

that stage, by this Court vide order dated 07.05.2022.

3.2. Furthermore, the third bail application bearing S.B. Criminal

Misc. Third Bail Application No.11718/2022 was dismissed as not

pressed, by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2022, with liberty to

the petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording of the

statement of the Doctor.

4. As the averments made in the present bail application would

reveal, the genesis of lodging of the aforementioned FIR lies in a

dispute pertaining to share in an agricultural land (land in

question) of the complainant.

4.1 Complainant-Narpat Singh filed the FIR before the Police

Station, Jayal on 14.08.2020, stating therein that 13-14 years

prior to lodging of the FIR, marriage of accused-Priyanka @ Pinki

d/o accused-Ranjeet Singh was solemnized with his

(complainant's) son Ranjeet Singh.

4.2 It was further stated in the FIR that on 13.08.2020, at

around 9:00 a.m.- 10:00 a.m., accused-petitioner Shailendra

Singh @ Shyam Singh s/o Ranjeet Singh (accused) & brother of

accused-Priyanka @ Pinki, along with other co-accused persons,

came to the complainant party's village, in a vehicle bearing

registration no. RJ 10 CA 7470, and asked the complainant to get

the 1/3rd portion of the land in question registered in the name of

accused-Priyanka (daughter-in-law of the complainant),

[2023/RJJD/016524] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-14967/2022]

whereupon the complainant told the accused persons that he had

already handed over 1/7th portion of the said land to his

(complainant's) son Ranjeet Singh and his wife accused-Priyanka

@ Pinki. Thereupon, the accused-petitioner and other co-accused

persons attacked the complainant and gave beatings to him; one

Parvat Singh (nephew of the complainant) however, came to

rescue the complainant and saved him from the clutches of the

accused persons.

4.3. However, at 12:00 noon, on the same day i.e. 13.08.2020,

Ranjeet Singh, son of the complainant, came running towards the

complainant's house and told that his in-laws (accused persons)

had come to kill him (son of the complainant); while Ranjeet

Singh (son of the complainant) was so running, the accused

persons, who were following him, attacked the complainant's

house by throwing stones.

4.4. Thereupon, when Mahipal (son of the complainant) alongwith

the complainant and his son-Ranjeet Singh rushed on a

motorcycle towards the police station to lodge the report of the

incident, the accused persons followed them in the

aforementioned vehicle (car) and hit the motorcycle, as a result of

which the complainant and his sons fell from the motorcycle;

immediately thereafter, the accused persons attacked the

complainant's son Ranjeet Singh and gave him beatings by lathis,

stones etc. and killed the complainant's son Ranjeet Singh; in the

said incident, the complainant's son Mahipal Singh also sustained

severe injuries.

5. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Ms.Priyanka Borana, appearing on behalf of the accused-petitioner

[2023/RJJD/016524] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-14967/2022]

submitted that after filing of the challan, the learned Court below

proceeded with the trial, during course of which, the statement of

PW-1 Mahipal Singh were recorded, wherein while stating that the

vehicle in question was being driven by Shailendra Singh (the

present petitioner), the said witness has not attributed any injury

to the present petitioner. Therefore, as per learned Senior

Counsel, the prosecution has completely failed to prove the

allegation against the present petitioner.

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in his

statement, PW-9 Dr. Suresh Bishnoi clearly stated that no tyre

(wheel) marks of the vehicle in question were found on the body

of Ranjeet Singh (deceased); the same apparently creates a

shadow of doubt upon the prosecution story.

6. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner thus submitted that

the contents of the FIR, when read conjointly with the statements

of the aforementioned witnesses, clearly shows that the

complainant has levelled omnibus allegations in the said FIR;

furthermore, there is no material available on record, which could

connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime in question.

6.1. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied

upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

cases of Ram Narain & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,

(1975) 4 SCC 497 and Raj Pal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana,

(2007) 13 SCC 554. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment

rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Mukna Ram Vs

State (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 1993, decided on

06.05.2022).

[2023/RJJD/016524] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-14967/2022]

7. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as

learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail

application, submitted that the material on record substantially

proves the active role of the petitioner in the crime in question; as

per the FIR and the charge-sheet, offences committed by the

petitioner are heinous in nature, and owing to gravity of the

offences, the present petitioner does not deserve indulgence of

bail by this Court.

7.1. It was further submitted that in his statement, PW-9

Dr.Suresh Bishnoi clearly opined regarding the injuries in question

and the cause of death of complainant's son Ranjeet Singh, and

therefore, on that count, amongst others, the petitioner has failed

to prove as to how the allegations in question are omnibus. It was

also submitted that as per the settled proposition of law, if there is

any inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical

evidence, the ocular evidence has to be disbelieved.

7.2. In support of their submissions, they relied upon the

judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs Dinesh Dayabhai Vala &

Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2014, decided on

26.07.2021).

7.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

8. This Court finds that at this stage, the petitioner's

involvement and role in commission of the crime in question

cannot be ruled out.

9. This Court further finds that the statement of PW-9

Dr.Suresh Bishnoi regarding the cause of death of Ranjeet Singh

[2023/RJJD/016524] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-14967/2022]

(complainant's son) and the medical report showing several

injuries on vital parts of the body of Ranjeet Singh (deceased), are

also sufficient for this Court to decline bail to the present

petitioner.

10. The judgments cited on behalf of the accused-petitioner also

do not render any assistance to his case.

11. Thus, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of

the case, as also the gravity of the alleged offence in question as

well as looking into the medical evidence on record, this Court is

not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioners, at this stage.

However, it is made clear that in the present order, has not made

any comments on merits, and thus, it is needless to say that the

dismissal of the present bail application, would not have any affect

on the ongoing trial of the case before the learned Court below.

12. Consequently, the present fourth bail application is

dismissed.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)