[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pradeep Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:7440]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2741/2025
Pradeep Kumar S/o Rajendra Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Dhani 15 Lkd P.s. Chatargarh, Dist. Bikaner (Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Bikaner)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Lalu Ram S/o Kheraj Ram, R/o 16, LKD Chhatargarh,
Bikaner
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi
Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore
Mr. Pravin Vyas
Ms. Ruchika
Mr. S.S. Gour
Mr. Vijay Solanki.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
Mr. O.P. Choudhary, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh &
Mr. JVS Deora
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 10/02/2026
Pronounced on : 12/02/2026
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite
details of the matter are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case
2. Concerned Police Station Chhatargarh
3. District Bikaner
4. Offences alleged in the FIR 281 & 106(1) of BNS-2023,
134 & 187 of M.V. Act.
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:53:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7440] (2 of 4) [CRLAS-2741/2025]
5. Offences added, if any 103(1), 3(5) & 238(a) of
BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989
6. Date of passing of impugned 20.06.2025
order
2. Learned counsel for the appellant while arguing the present
appeal submitted that there is no eye-witness to the crime in
question and the appellant has been made accused based on the
circumstantial evidence. He submitted that initially a written
report was submitted by one Lalu Ram on 24.11.2024 at Police
station Chhatargarh with the allegation that his uncle's son
Sultana Ram (deceased) was travelling on motor-cycle and
stopped for a while. Suddenly, an unknown vehicle which was
being driven negligently and rashly by unknown person, dashed
his motor-cycle and resultantly his cousin brother Sultana Ram
sustained injuries and succumbed to those injuries. It was a hit
and run case.
2.1 Later, a written complaint was submitted by father of the
deceased (Sultana Ram) namely Fata Ram alleging that Sultana
Ram died not because of accidental death but as a matter of fact
he was murdered. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that the story as narrated becomes doubtful right from inception
as firstly, it was alleged that it was an accidental case and later
the incident was projected to be a murder. Further, there is a time
lapse of about 17 to 18 days between the first report lodged by
Lalu Ram and subsequently by deceased's father Fata Ram, which
also makes the entire story doubtful. The iron rod allegedly used
for inflicting head injury to the deceased Sultana Ram was not
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:53:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7440] (3 of 4) [CRLAS-2741/2025]
recovered at the instance of appellant. Satpal (PW/4) has turned
hostile and has specifically denied that any car light was sold by
him to the accused persons to give a colour of accidental death.
He also submitted that out of 27 witnesses, only 09 witnesses
have been examined so far and therefore, the trial is not likely to
be concluded and would take considerable time in its final
conclusion.
2.2 Learned counsel for the appellant referred to the statements
of Lalu Ram & Prema Ram recorded under Section 180 BNSS so
also the statements of PW/1 Lalu Ram, PW/2 Prema Ram, PW/3
Ganesh and PW/5 Poonam Chand recorded before the Court and
submitted that there are contradictory statements with regard to
the last seen theory, based upon which, the present appellant and
co-accused Narendra Kumar are sought to be implicated in the
present case. The appellant is in judicial custody since
21.12.2024.
Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
appellant argued that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on
bail as the trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed this
appeal and submitted that it is a case of circumstantial evidence,
however, the call details and the tower location connect the
present appellant with the crime as he was present along with co-
accused Narendra Kumar, who had motive of causing such brutal
injury to Sultana Ram, which resulted into his death. The MTO
report clearly indicates that the headlight of the motorcycle was
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:53:36 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:7440] (4 of 4) [CRLAS-2741/2025]
found to be broken on one corner, which casts further doubt on it
being an accidental collision with another vehicle and also raises
doubt as to whether the cause of death was accidental. The father
of deceased namely Fata Ram (PW-7) has stated in his statement
that the deceased and the present appellant used to travel
together to their work place, therefore too, the involvement of the
present appellant in the crime in question cannot be ruled out.
3.1 They submitted that out of 27 witnesses, 09 witnesses have
already been examined in a short span of 5-6 months, which
further indicates that the trial is proceeding with full speed. The
investigating officer is yet to be examined and looking to the
nature of heinous crime committed, appellant may not be
enlarged on bail.
4. Considering the submissions made above so also considering
the challan papers, the statements recorded so far and also
considering the fact that the investigating officer is yet to be
examined and trial is also being conducted at a reasonably good
pace, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at
this stage.
5. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 12/02/2026 at 01:53:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
