Rajasthan High Court
Dinesh Son Of Shri Dulli vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 May, 2024
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2024:RJ-JP:21118]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 92/2022
Dinesh Son Of Shri Dulli, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of
Village Gedupura Police Station Sadar Hindaun City, District
Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Mahesh Son Of Shri Rameshwar Gurjar, Resident Of
Gedupura, Police Station Sadar Hindaun City District
Karauli (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP
For Complainant(S) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahani
Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 09/05/2024
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 19/01/2024
BY THE COURT:-
1. The instant application has been preferred on behalf of the
complainant seeking cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide
order dated 24.05.2022 passed in SBCRLMB No.8080/2022 by
keeping the Court in dark and not placing the true facts before
the Court while obtaining an order by hiding the correct facts.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (2 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
3. It is revealing that the bail application preferred on behalf of
the accused-respondent Mahesh came to be allowed by this
Court vide order dated 24.05.2022 passed in SBCRLMB
No.8080/2022. The same is being reproduced hereunder:-
"1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner
Mahesh S/o Shri Rameshwar Gurjar under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The
petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.373/2021
registered at Police Station Hindaun City, Karauli for the offence(s)
under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 and 302 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a false case
has been foisted against the petitioner. He has nothing to do with the
alleged offences and no useful purpose would be served by keeping
him behind the bars. The other co-accused persons have already been
released on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail
application.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the
parties and looking to the possibility that the trial may take long time
to conclude, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the
petitioner on bail.
5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be
enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned
on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so."
4. It is revealing that on 24.05.2022, the above application was
listed in Cause List at Sr. No.171. It was morning hours of the
Court and due to heavy board and paucity of time, the matter
was not taken up as having not reached during the course of
regular hearing. It has been the practice prevalent in the High
Court that while rising the Court, the learned counsel appearing
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (3 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
for the different matters makes a mention for taking up their
cases. With a view to ensure that no matters having genuine
urgency or related to personal liberty are left out or deprived of
hearing, this Court often permits mentioning of certain cases at
the time of rising of the Court. This includes those cases where
the parties have settled the dispute based on compromise and are
covered under the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in the case of Gain Singh Vs. State of Punjab as well as
the cases in which similarly situated accused have been enlarged
on bail and some cases of petty nature.
5. This Court by jogging its memory, skimming through the
record of the case as well as tallying the facts submitted as
above, comes to KNOW that on 24.05.2022, the matter could not
be reached during regular hearing but at the time of rising of the
Court, learned counsel appearing for the accused respondent
made a mention that several accused persons, whose case is not
distinguishable to the case of the accused Mahesh have been
enlarged on bail, therefore, on the ground of parity and to
maintain judicial consistency and parity, this Court; believing the
statement made by the learned counsel to be true and correct
allowed the bail application on the ground of parity.
6. As a matter of fact while granting bail to the accused Veer
Singh, Bablu, Samay Singh, Ramfal, Smt. Jaggo this Court had
minutely gone through the facts of the case and whereafter the
bail applications of the aforesaid accused were allowed but at the
same time, it was observed that the death of the deceased had
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (4 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
occurred due to multiple firearm injuries specifically attributed to
accused Dhara Singh and Mahesh. For ready reference the bail
orders dated 10.11.2021 passed in SBCRLMB Nos.16346/2021,
16347/2021, 17280/2021, 17647/2021 and 17648/2021 are
being reproduced herein below:-
"These bail applications came to be submitted on behalf of the
petitioners namely (i) Veer Singh (ii) Bablu (iii) Samay Singh @ Samma
(iv) Ramfal and (v) Jaggo who are in custody in connection with FIR
No.373/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar Hindaun City, Distt.
Karauli, for the accusation of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323,
341, 307, 302 IPC.
With the consent of learned counsel for the petitioners, complainant
and the learned Public Prosecutor, all these bail applications are being
heard and decided by this common order as all arose out of the same FIR
as mentioned above.
Brief facts giving rise to the instant bail applications are that the
afore-mentioned FIR came to be lodged wherein it is alleged by
complainant Dinesh S/o Dulli Gurjar that on the fateful day of the incident
i.e. 26.3.2021, when he along with Dulli, Rajaram, Dayaram, Lokesh and
Dinesh were returning back to their home from their respective agricultural
fields, in the mid way, suddenly the accused persons made an assault over
them and caused several injuries. It is specifically mentioned that accused
Mahesh, Rameshwar, Dhara, Ranjeet, Kalli, Ramphal, Rakat and Vishnu
were yielded with fire arm weapon and as a result of gun shot injury,
deceased Dulli died on the spot. But other persons i.e. Lokesh, Dayaram,
Lokesh S/o Mithann, Dayaram, Rajaram, Uganti, Bablu, Dashrath,
Dilsukh, and Luvkush had also sustained gun shot injuries. Injured Lokesh
S/o Dayaram and Lokesh S/o Mithann were evaccuated to higher centre,
Jaipur as their condition was deteriorating. Accordingly, the investigation
was commenced and as many as 08 persons were arrested. After usual
investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against them, while
keeping the investigation pending for two accused persons.
SUBMISSIONS IN EACH CASE
Veer Singh's case:
Learned counsel for the petitioner Veer Singh submitted that he has
been falsely implicated in this matter, his name does not find place in the
FIR. He further contended that as per prosecution story, he was hired for
cultivation since he had a tractor. He further contended that nothing was
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (5 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
recovered from his instance. He drew attention of this court towards the
statement of injured eye witnesses more particularly the prosecution
witness Lokesh S/o Mithann who stated that accused Jaggo and Ramfal
were cultivating the fields with the assistance of present petitioner Veer
Singh. Bablu's case:
Learned counsel for the petitioner Bablu contends that from the
bare perusal of statements of prosecution witnesses more particularly the
injured eye witnesses, it would reveal that the accused was having a sword
in his hand, but no sword has been recovered from him nor any specific
overt act has been attributed to him. He further contends that a bare
perusal of autopsy report would reveal that none of the injuries received by
the deceased can be caused by a sharp edged weapon like sword. Arguing
further, learned counsel submits that though a lathi said to have recovered
at his instance, but same has neither been found smeared with blood nor
same has been sent for detection and comparison of blood to the FSL. He
strenuously urged that the cause of death as assigned by the Medical
Officers is the multiple fire-arm injuries, which has specifically attributed
to accused Dhara Singh & Mahesh. It is also submitted that the trial of
the case would likely to take long time, therefore, the petitioner deserves
to be released on bail.
Samay Singh's & Ramfal's case:
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused petitioner/s Samay
Singh & Ramfal contends that from the bare perusal of statements of
prosecution witnesses more particularly the injured eye witnesses, it would
reveal that the accused petitioners Samay Singh & Ramfal were having a
sword in their hands, but no specific overt act has been attributed to them
He further contends that a bare perusal of autopsy report would reveal that
none of the injuries received by the deceased can be caused by a sharp
edged weapon like sword. Arguing further, learned counsel submits that
allegedly a sword has been recovered from accused Samay Singh @
Samma and Ramfal, but same has neither been found smeared with blood
nor the same has been sent for detection and comparison of blood to the
FSL. He strenuously urged that the cause of death as assigned by the
Officers is the multiple fire-arm injuries, which are attributed to other
accused. Learned counsel further contends that not a single witness has
alleged that accused-petitioners Samay Singh and Ramfal had inflicted any
injury to anyone. It is also submitted that the trial of the case would likely
to take long time, therefore, the petitioners deserves to be released on bail.
Jaggo's case:
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused petitioner Jaggo
submitted that the petitioner Jaggo is a lady, nothing was recovered from
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (6 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
her instance. It is prayed that Sec.437 Cr.PC envisages special provision
for bail in respect of female, therefore, petitioner Jaggo deserves to be
enlarged on bail. At last, it has been argued that since the accused persons
have been arraigned as an accused in this case by fastening vicarious
liability, the same can only be ascertained after the full fledged trial as to
whether all the members of the assembly had a common object and in
furtherance of the common object the offence of murder was committed,
hence they have strong ground for release on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of complainant have vehemently opposed the bail
pleas. However, they contended that apart from killing of deceased Dulli,
09 persons have also sustained injuries, therefore, it is not a fit case where
concession of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public
Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant on the prayer for bail. Perused the material available on
record.
After thoughtful consideration, and perusal of the statements of eye
witnesses as well as the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners
coupled with the fact that as per medical opinion, death of deceased
occurred due to multiple fire arm injuries which were specifically
attributed to accused Dhara Singh and Mahesh, and no other injured
have received any injury endangering to life.
Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that
the accused-petitioners namely (i) Veer Singh (ii) Bablu (iii) Samay Singh
@ Samma (iv) Ramfal and (v) Jaggo arrested in connection with FIR No.
373/2021 P.S. Sadar Hindaun, Distt. Karauli, shall be released on bail;
provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two
surety bonds of like amount of Rs.50,000/- 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.
A copy of this order be placed in all the connected files."
7. The other similarly situated accused Rameshwar being
applicant of bail Application No.18708/2021 was also granted bail
on 22.11.2021, which is as under:-
"1. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the bail
application preferred on behalf of the petitioner No.2 Murari and
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (7 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
seeks liberty to renew the prayer after the material witnesses are
examined in trial, the prayer made appears to be genuine.
2. Accordingly, the bail application preferred on behalf of the
petitioner No.2 Murari is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage with
liberty sought for.
3. As far as the bail plea of petitioner No.1 Rameshwar is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly
situated accused persons namely Veer Singh, Bablu, Samay Singh @
Samma, Ramfal and Jaggo have been released on bail by this Court
vide order dated 10.11.2021 and the case of the present petitioner is
not distinguishable in any manner than the case of those who have
been released.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as Public
Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.
5. Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the
petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the
case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case,
this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner 1. Rameshwar S/
o Sanwal who is in custody in FIR No.373/2021, Police Station
Sadar, Hindaun City, Karauli shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties
of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for
his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing
as and when called upon to do so."
8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to the accused
Ranjeet applicant of Bail Application No.4756/2022 decided on
07.05.2022 wherein there has been a clear recital of attribution of
fatal injuries to the accused Dhara Singh and Mahesh. The said
order is being reproduced as under:-
"This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C in
connection with FIR No.373/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (8 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
Hindaun City, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 147, 148,
149, 323, 341, 307 & 302 of IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no specific overt-
act has been attributed to the petitioner and the similarly situated co-
accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and the case of the
present petitioner is not distinguishable to them. Counsel further submits
that the petitioner is behind the bars since 10.02.2022 and the
supplementary charge-sheet has already been filed. The petitioner has
criminal antecedents of two cases, in which, he is on bail. Hence, the
petitioner may kindly be released on bail.
Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General
and learned counsel for the complainant both have opposed the bail
application. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the injury No.8
of the deceased Dulli Gurjar was caused by the petitioner and the bail
application of coaccused Murari has already been dismissed by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2021 with liberty to file
afresh, after examination of material witnesses. Hence, the bail application
of the petitioner may be rejected.
Heard. Perused the material available on the record.
The bail applications of co-accused Veer Singh & Ors. have already
been granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
10.11.2021 and in that order, it has been observed that "as per medical
opinion, death of deceased occurred due to multiple fire arm injuries which
were specifically attributed to accused Dhara Singh and Mahesh and no
other injured have received any injury endangering to life."
As per Post-Mortem Report, opinion with regard to cause of death
is that "deceased died due to multiple firearm injuries, caused damage of
left-lungs, heart and large intestine. Internal hemorrhage injuries
implicated upon body are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course,
ante-mortem in nature."
As per charge-sheet, Dhara Singh and Mahesh fired on deceased
Dulli Gurjar, thereby he died and at the instance of the present petitioner,
one 'Lathi' was recovered. After investigation, supplementary charge-sheet
has not been filed against the petitioner for the offence under the Arms Act.
The bail applications of co-accused Rameshwar & Veer Singh & Ors. have
already been granted by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide orders
dated 22.11.2021 & 10.11.2021 respectively. Therefore, looking to the
above facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any
opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this court deems it just and
proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (9 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner Ranjeet S/o Rameshwar Gurjar
shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on
all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."
9. After having a further look again over the facts of the case,
it was found that the prosecution witness Dinesh, Laakhan Singh,
Raja Ram, Daya Ram, Ram Khiladi, Madan, Smt. Uganti and
Ramkesh in an unequivocal terms without any ambiguity have
stated to the police that the accused Dhara Singh and Mahesh
inflicted firearm injuries to the deceased Dulli and as a
consequence of which he succumbed to death.
10. Relying on the words of a Lawyer and keeping trust upon
him without seriously verifying the facts from the bulky record
may sometimes became hazardous and so has happened in this
case. Ostensibly, this Court has been kept in dark by not
submitting the true facts before it and indeed this Court has also
abstained from verifying the truthfulness of the submission made
at Bar. Every time, the Court is not infallible. To err is human
and it is only for human beings to make mistakes. Besides
the above, being the Minister of the Court, the Public Prosecutor
is also supposed to assist the Court to reach at a correct and
justifiable conclusion but seriously saying that no such assistance
was provided and even the Public Prosecutor did not bring the
aforementioned fact in the notice of the Court which led this Court
to pass an order on erroneous consideration.
[2024:RJ-JP:21118] (10 of 10) [CRLBC-92/2022]
11. There is no dispute that a bail granted to an accused on
false pretext or by hiding true facts and submissions can be
cancelled by the same Court itself since the Court has been kept
in dark. The order granting bail was not passed on merits rather
the sole consideration of granting bail was the parity which
actually was not the truth.
12. In this view of the matter, the application for cancellation of
bail is allowed. It is ordered that the bail granted to accused
Mahesh vide order dated 24.05.2022 in SBCRLMB No.8080/2022
is hereby cancelled. The accused Mahesh is directed to surrender
before the trial Court on or before 30.06.2024. After the
surrender, the accused would be at liberty to move a fresh bail
application before this Court directly as this Court does not want
to preclude him from hearing his bail application on merits and
niceties. The learned trial Court shall keep him in judicial custody,
upon his surrender.
(FARJAND ALI),J
mamta/132
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
