[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aavesh Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16397) on 7 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9804/2025
Aavesh Khan S/o Gulam Mustafa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Chimpon-Ka-Mauhalla, Gangashahar Road, Bikaner. Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Kavita Poonia, At Present Posted as C.I., SHO P.S.
Nayashahar, Bikaner. Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
Mr. I.S. Rathore
Mr. Sourav Shekhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, P.P.
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
07/04/2026
1. This case comes up again before this Court as earlier the
petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/-. The Supreme
Court directed the matter to be restored considering the nature of
the order passed for consideration afresh in accordance with law
and to decide the matter on its own merits along with
observations by this Court.
2. In view thereto, this Court directed the learned Public
Prosecutor to submit the present status report relating to the FIR,
which has been produced.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued
and drawn attention of this Court to the FIR registered against the
petitioner and several other persons and submits that the entire
case has been setup on the basis of a statement made by one
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:24:33 PM)
(2 of 4) [CRLMP-9804/2025]
Vishnu Sadh, who during interrogation in another case, has given
details about several members of one Rohit Godara gang. On the
basis of the interrogation, an FIR was registered by the SHO,
Kotget, Bikaner against the petitioner along with other persons
named by the concerned Vishnu Sadh. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that no specific role has been assigned to the
petitioner and he has been named merely on the basis of
statement of another accused Vishnu Sadh, whose statement
cannot be relied upon to initiate criminal proceedings against the
petitioner. He relies on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu1 in support of his submission.
4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has strongly
opposed the contentions raised by the counsel for the petitioner
and submits that it is not a case where this Court should interfere
with the FIR registered not only against the petitioner but also
against the members of huge gang, which is operating at the
national level in various States and is involved in extortion,
attempt to murder, murders and other white collar crimes. He
submits that the concerned accused, who has given the names in
his statement, is also member of the same gang of Rohit Godara &
Goldy Brar. Learned counsel has also invited attention to the
status report submitted by the SHO Kotget, Bikaner, which reflects
that there are as many as 29 cases registered against the
petitioner and there are as many as 17 cases, wherein charge-
sheets were filed in the court and accused-petitioner put to trial as
on date. There are three cases, out of which one is pending before
1 Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013, decided on October 29, 2020
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:24:33 PM)
(3 of 4) [CRLMP-9804/2025]
the court and in two cases charge-sheet is in the process of being
filed. He submits that while dealing with the matters regarding
persons, who are involved in criminal activity as a gang. The Court
would require to maintain a yardstick different from individual
cases of sporadic nature.
5. I have gone through the FIR registered against the petitioner
initially as well as the present FIR where the petitioner's name is
figured amongst several other accused as main members of the
gang. It is the statement of the co-accused that the petitioner is
the main handler of the gang and it is at his behest that targets
are given to other members to perform various crimes including
murder, extortion and abduction.
6. While in the case of Tofan Singh (supra), the Supreme Court
has held that the statement of the co-accused cannot be read as
against the another accused in a criminal case registered under
the NDPS Act.
7. So far as the present FIR is concerned, we find that the
S.H.O. has lodged the FIR on the basis of the inquiry and
information received from an accused, who was arrested in some
other case. The modus operandi is appreciated by this court, such
a procedure would help in catching hold of criminals, who may be
involved in various activities of such a nature and several cases
are later on found to be pending. The statement of the concerned
accused has been revealed to be correct and hence, we cannot
say that the present case falls within the four corners of yardstick
laid down for quashing of an FIR by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:24:33 PM)
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-9804/2025]
the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal &
Ors.2
8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any reason to
quash the proceedings and investigation initiated against the
petitioner.
9. The Criminal Misc. Petition is according, dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ
1-harish/-
2 Civil Appeal No. 5412 of 1990, decided on 21.11.1990
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:24:33 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
