Kanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 1260 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kanti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 31 January, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:4551]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8429/2025

1.       Naka Ram Alias Nokaram S/o Nonaji, Aged About 29
         Years, Ro Sariyafali Paba Police Station Rohida Sirohi
         Rajasthan (At Present Lodged At Sab Jail Kotda Dist
         Udaipur)
2.       Ramesh S/o Chenaji, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sariyafali
         Paba Police Station Rohida District Sirohi Rajasthan (At
         Present Lodged At Sub Jail Kotda District Udaipur)
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent
                             Connected With
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1626/2024
Pappu Ram S/o Ramaji, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ratoda Ki Fali
Paba, P.s. Rohida, Dist. Sirohi. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail,
Sirohi).
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent
  S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 5992/2025
Kanti Lal S/o Shri Sona Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Near
Masjid, Rohida, The Pindwara, Dist. Sirohi (Raj.) (At Present
Lodged In Dist Jail Sirohi)
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Hukum Singh Chouhan
                               Mr. Jawan Singh Rao
                               Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Shah
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP.




                     (Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)
                    (Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 06:03:34 PM)
 [2026:RJ-JD:4551]                        (2 of 10)                       [CRLMB-8429/2025]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                         ORDER

Reserved on:- 19/01/2026 Pronounced on:- 31/01/2026

1. These applications for bail under Section 482 BNSS have

been preferred on behalf of the petitioners who have been

arrested in connection with FIR No.40/2020 registered at Police

Station Pindwara, District Sirohi for the offences under Sections

364, 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Succinctly stated, facts of the present case are that on

22.01.2020, the father of the deceased - Praveen Kumar lodged a

missing person report stating inter alia that his son - Pankaj

Kumar has not returned to Pindwarra from Sirohi since

21.01.2020. During the course of investigation in relation to the

missing person report, the investigating agency received an

anonymous information that a half burned burned body is lying

near village Valoriay, Police Station Rohilla. The co-accused

Praveen Kumar along with his family members reached the

recovery site and found that the aforesaid dead body is of his son.

Thereafter, Praveen Kumar lodged an FIR at Police Station

Pindwara for offences under Section 302, 364 and 201 of IPC for

murder of his son -Pankaj and the investigation in relation thereto

was commenced.

3. During the course of investigation, the investigation agency

found out that the father of the deceased - Praveen Kumar was

addicted to consuming alcohol and used to quarrel with his son -

Pankaj Kumar. Before the incident, the deceased - Pankaj Kumar

had beaten his father - Praveen Kumar (accused) and therefore,

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (3 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

Praveen Kumar hatched a criminal conspiracy and contacted his

former acquaintance Kanti Lal (present petitioner) to murder his

son- Pankaj Kumar. Thereafter, the petitioner Kanti Lal hired the

petitioners - Naka Ram @ Nokaram, Ramesh and Pappu Ram to

commit the murder of Pankaj Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. It was

contended that a bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the

petitioners were not named therein, and no specific role has been

attributed to them at the initial stage. It was further submitted

that there is no motive whatsoever alleged or established against

the petitioners for committing the murder of Pankaj Kumar.

Learned counsel vehemently submitted that the entire case of the

prosecution against the petitioners rests solely on circumstantial

evidence, and even such circumstances do not form a complete

and unbroken chain pointing exclusively towards the guilt of the

petitioners. It was submitted that none of the circumstances relied

upon by the prosecution conclusively establish the involvement of

the petitioners in the alleged crime.

5. To substantiate this contention attention of the Court was

drawn towards the FSL report, wherein it has been categorically

opined that no presence of inflammable petroleum hydrocarbon

fractions was detected in the plastic bottle allegedly recovered by

the investigating agency. On the strength of the said report, it was

contended that the prosecution version that the petitioners, along

with the co-accused, committed the murder of the deceased and

thereafter attempted to burn the dead body by pouring petrol is

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (4 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

rendered doubtful, thereby snapping an important link in the chain

of circumstantial evidence.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners are in

judicial custody since about last 5 years and till date out of 56

cited prosecution witnesses, statements of only 30 cited

prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the competent

criminal Court. Furthermore 11 witnesses have turned hostile.

Learned counsel submitted that the speed at which the trial

against the petitioners is being conducted, the same is not likely

to be concluded in the near future and the delay in trial is not at

all attributable to the present petitioners.

7. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the investigation in

the matter has already been concluded; no recovery is due to be

made from the present petitioners; statements of material

prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before the

learned trial court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the

petitioners influencing them or the renaming prosecution

witnesses, therefore, the benefit of bail be extended to the

present petitioners.

8. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has fervently opposed

these bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted

learned Public Prosecutor submitted that sufficient material has

been collected during investigation in the form of money and

personal belongings of the deceased at the instance of the

petitioners which prima facie establishes the complicity of the

petitioners in commission of the alleged crime. It was further

submitted that the petitioners are accused of committing a

heinous and brutal crime of murder, which has serious

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (5 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

repercussions on the society at large. Thus, these bail applications

deserve to be rejected straightaway.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the

material available on record.

10. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, and after perusing the material

available on record, this Court prima facie finds that this is the

third bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner - Kanti

Lal and first bail application on behalf of the petitioners - Naka

Ram @ Nokaram, Ramesh and Pappu Ram.

11. This Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 rejected the second

bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner - Kanti Lal on

merits while passing a detailed order. The order dated 16.2024 is

reproduced hereinbelow:-

"1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.40/2020, registered at Police Station Pindwara, District Sirohi, for offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 109 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. The first bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2730/2021) filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2023.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, on 22.01.2020, father of the deceased- Praveen Kumar (who himself is a co-accused) lodged a missing person report stating inter alia that his son- Pankaj Kumar has not returned to Pindwara from Sirohi since 21.01.2020. While the police was investigating the missing person report, on 23.01.2020, they received an anonymous tip that a half burned body is laying near Village Valoriay, P.S. Rohilla. The co-accused Praveen

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (6 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

Kumar alongwith members of the family went to site and found that the aforesaid dead body is of his son. Shri Praveen Kumar by way of filing an FIR, requested the police to investigate into the matter.

5. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, co-accused and father of the deceased- Praveen Kumar used to fight with his son everyday. Being fed up with the dispute and the fight which used to erupt between them everyday, the co- accused Praveen Kumar hatched a conspiracy with present petitioner and other co-accused persons to kill him. On the date of incident i.e. 21.01.2020, the petitioner and the co-accused persons killed Pankaj Kumar by strangulating him with scarf (gamchha) and thereafter, burned the dead body by pouring petrol over it.

6. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicate in the present case. The petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. There is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and the case against the present petitioner is solely based on circumstantial evidence and even the chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. To substantiate this argument attention of the Court was drawn towards the FSL report dated 02.02.2021 wherein it is categorically mentioned that "Presence of any inflammable petroleum hydrocarbon fractions could not be detected in the extract of each of the samples packed in the packet marked A, S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5 AND S-6". According to the learned counsel, in view of the FSL report dated 02.02.2021, the prosecution story of petitioner and co-accused persons killing the deceased and thereafter pouring petrol over it to burn the body fails.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since about last 4 years and till date out of 56 cited prosecution witnesses, statements of only 26 cited prosecution witnesses have been recorded before the competent criminal Court. Further, out of 26 witnesses, 11 witnesses have turned hostile. Learned counsel submitted that the speed at which the trial against the petitioner is being conducted, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (7 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

future and therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of the allegation levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that though as per the FSL report, the presence of any inflammable petroleum hydrocarbon fractions could not be detected from the samples sent for FSL but Dr. Kundan Singh Gill (PW.11) who was Chairman of the Medical Board which conducted the postmortem of the deceased, during his Court statements dated 16.05.2022 has clearly stated that at the time of conducting postmortem of the deceased 'serous fluid' was present which indicates that the body was burned. It is pertinent to not here that no cross-examination was done with Dr. Kundan Singh Gill (PW.11) with reference to the FSL report dated 02.02.2021.

10. This Court also prima facie finds that though there is no eye-witness of the incident but when pursuant to the disclosure statements of the petitioner and the co-accused persons their mobile phone locations and their mobile call details were obtained, it was found that they were in constant touch with each other and their locations were also found near the place of incident or on the locations disclosed by them in their statements which is prima facie indicative of their involvement in commission of the alleged crime.

11. This Court also finds that not only personal belongings of the deceased have been recovered at the instance of the accused persons but there is also a last seen witness of the incident. The mobile phone locations and mobile call details between the petitioner and the co-accused persons have also been made part of the challan papers. This Court, looking to the seriousness of the offence; the evidence and circumstances appearing on the face of record against the present petitioner, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

12. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) filed by the petitioner- Kanti Lal S/o Shri Sona Rma is dismissed."

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (8 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

12. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is evident that this

is the third successive bail application on behalf of the petitioner -

Kanti Lal. The earlier bail application was dismissed on merits by

this Court. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any change in

circumstances or bring on record any new ground for release of

the petitioner - Kanti Lal on bail.

13. So far as case of the petitioners - Naka Ram @ Nokaram,

Ramesh and Pappu Ram is concerned, after analyzing the case file

in entirety, this Court has no hesitation in observing that the

involvement of these accused persons in the alleged crime is not

distinguishable than that of the co-accused person namely Kanti

Lal whose second bail application was rejected by this Court by a

detailed order. This Court also prima facie finds that the mobile

call details, locations of the petitioners at the relevant point of

time as well as the FSL report and CCTV footage so also the fact

that the petitioner - Pappu Ram in his disclosure statements

recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has stated

that they had purchased petrol in a plastic bottle and has also

identified the place from where they had bought the said petrol to

burn the body of the deceased. All these facts prima facie indicate

that all the accused persons were in constant touch with each

other for commission of the alleged crime. The observations made

by this Court in the order dated 16.12.2024 while rejecting the

bail application of petitioner - Kanti Lal are equivocally applicable

to the case of present petitioners.

14. This Court finds no merit in the argument raised by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay in trial, entitles

them to be released on bail. In cases involving grave and heinous

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (9 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

offences such as murder, mere delay in trial cannot be construed

as a ground for grant of bail, unless the delay is shown to be

inordinate and wholly attributable to the prosecution so as to

amount to a violation of the right to speedy trial. Having regard to

the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offence,

this Court is of the considered view that the plea of delay does not

advance the case of the petitioners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav,

(2004) 7 SCC 528 has held as under:

"The consideration of the period of incarceration undergone by an accused cannot be a decisive factor for grant of bail. In serious offences like murder, unless the delay in trial is of such magnitude that it can be said that the accused has been deprived of his right to speedy trial, the accused cannot claim bail as a matter of right."

15. This Court also prima facie finds that the mere fact that a

case is based on circumstantial evidence does not, by itself, entitle

an accused to the grant of bail, particularly at a stage when the

trial is still ongoing and material witnesses are yet to be

examined. The sufficiency, reliability, and completeness of the

chain of circumstantial evidence are matters which need to be

adjudicated by the learned court below on the basis of

appreciation of evidence produced before it. At the stage of

consideration of bail, the Court is only required to assess whether

a prima facie case exists against the accused and not to conduct a

meticulous examination of the evidence as would be done at the

stage of trial.

16. In the present case, the prosecution has placed on record

material to prima facie show that blood money and personal

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:4551] (10 of 10) [CRLMB-8429/2025]

belongings of the deceased were recovered pursuant to the

disclosure statements made by the petitioners and CCTV footage

of the petitioners receiving money for the job from co-accused

Praveen Kumar. Such recoveries, effected at the instance of the

petitioners, constitute a significant incriminating circumstance and

cannot be brushed aside at this stage. It is well settled position of

law that the Court is not required to examine the evidence in

detail and record its finding on merits. The Court has only to see

whether there is a prima facie case against the accused.

17. Having regard to the nature of the offence, the seriousness

of the allegations, and the material collected during investigation,

this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are

dismissed.

18. It is, however, made clear that the observations

made/findings recorded above are for limited purpose of

adjudication of these bail applications and the same shall not

prejudice the trial pending against the present petitioners/co-

accused.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J Dinesh/-

(Uploaded on 31/01/2026 at 11:19:48 AM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)