[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Sayach vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17567) on 16 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:17059]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 9339/2025
Mukesh Sayach S/o Bhiya Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Shubhali, Police Station Jamsar, District Bikaner (Raj.) (Presently
Lodged At Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Keshav Pareek, complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 07/04/2026
Pronounced on: 16/04/2026
1. The present application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.130/2024 registered at Police Station Jamsar, District
Bikaner, for the Sections 103(2) and 3(5) of the BNSS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the
prosecution, the complainant, Gopal Singh, lodged a written
complaint alleging that his brother Narendra Singh, who was
employed in a wood factory, on 31.08.2024 at 09:00 am informed
his cousin, Sawai Singh that he had been called to the said factory
by Rampratap, his father Kisna Ram, Bhagirath, Mukesh, Girdhari,
and Kisan Lal, as they are suspecting theft of a mobile phone by
him.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:41:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17059] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-9339/2025]
It was further alleged in the complaint that during the
intervening night of 31.08.2024 and 01.09.2024, at around 3:00-
4:00 AM, Sawai Singh again received a call from the mobile phone
of the Narendra Singh, during which he allegedly heard sounds
indicating that Narendra Singh was being assaulted by certain
persons. Upon receiving such information, Sawai Singh informed the
complainant, and thereafter, they, along with other family members,
proceeded to the factory premises. By the time they reached the
spot/factory, Narendra had already succumbed to his injuries caused
to him by the above said persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing the
attention of the Court to the challan papers, case file, and the
statement of the Investigating Officer, namely Indra Kumar (P.W.05),
learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated
solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises, and no direct
evidence is available on record against him. It was further submitted
that there is no eyewitness to the incident, nor was the petitioner
last seen in the company of the deceased.
4. Drawing further attention to the statement of P.W.05, learned
counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, the
Investigating Officer did not collect the call detail records of mobile
numbers 9799298310 and 9660390696, which were allegedly used
for conversation between the deceased and his cousin Sawai Singh.
The mobile phone of Sawai Singh was also not seized. It was further
submitted that no certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Indian
Evidence Act was produced to establish the genuineness of the call
recordings and the pen drive handed over to the investigating team.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:41:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17059] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-9339/2025]
5. Further, the Investigating Officer acknowledged that no such
certificate was provided in relation to the video recording (Exhibit-
P20), which has been relied upon to establish the presence of the
petitioner at the place of occurrence. The said video recording was
stored on a pen drive without the requisite certification to verify its
authenticity or the manner of its creation. Learned counsel also
submitted that the video recordings (mobile/CCTV) relied upon to
establish the petitioner's involvement are not free from the
possibility of editing or tampering.
6. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgments, has held that in the
absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, electronic evidence is not admissible, and such certification is a
mandatory precondition to establish the authenticity and integrity of
electronic records.
7. It was further contended that material prosecution witnesses,
namely Chetan Ram (P.W.01), Narendra Kumar (P.W.02), and Kashi
Ram (P.W.03), who, as per the prosecution story, had provided
information regarding the presence of the accused at the wood
factory, have turned hostile. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that
the petitioner is in judicial custody, the investigation has been
completed, and the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of
time; therefore, the benefit of bail ought to be granted to the
petitioner.
8. Per Contra, the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel
for the complainant opposed the bail application.
9. Heard. Perused the material available on record.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:41:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17059] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-9339/2025]
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the statements of Gopal
Singh (P.W.06), Sawai Singh (P.W.07), Gopi Ram (P.W.08), and the
Investigating Officer (P.W.05), this Court prima facie finds that the
allegation against the petitioner and co-accused persons is that they
brutally assaulted the deceased, Narendra Singh, with a fan belt
after tying him to a pole. The postmortem report indicates that the
deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained during the assault.
11. During the course of investigation, the police recovered a
mobile phone at the instance of co-accused Krishna Ram @ Kishanlal
(OPPO handset with JIO SIM No. 8955206659), in which he had
recorded the incident of the deceased being beaten with a fan belt.
The petitioner can be seen in the said recording, along with other
accused persons, questioning the deceased regarding the alleged
stolen mobile phone.
12. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, since the mobile phone
was recovered at the instance of the co-accused, it cannot be
expected that he would furnish a certificate under Section 65B of the
Indian Evidence Act. However, the investigating agency has sent the
said mobile phone for FSL examination.
13. Be that as it may, Sawai Singh (P.W.07), in his court
statement, deposed that he received a call from the deceased
stating that he was being beaten, and during the call, he heard the
voices of three to four persons.
14. The most crucial and significant evidence is that of Gopi Ram
(P.W.08), who deposed before the trial court that he runs a mobile
shop. The accused persons, suspecting that the deceased had sold a
stolen mobile phone at his shop, called him to the place of
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:41:03 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17059] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-9339/2025]
occurrence and asked him to verify the same. Upon reaching the
spot, he saw the deceased lying on the floor in an injured condition.
When asked, the deceased told him that he had been mercilessly
beaten by the accused persons.
15. This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that pieces of a fan
belt containing bloodstains were recovered from the place of
occurrence by the investigating agency.
16. In view of the evidence collected by the investigating agency,
the seriousness of the allegations, and the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this
stage.
17. Consequently, the instant application for bail under Section
483 BNSS filed on behalf of the petitioner is hereby dismissed.
18. It is, however, made clear that the observations made and
findings recorded hereinabove are for the limited purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application, and the trial court shall
not be prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
Dinesh/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:41:03 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
