Dismissed

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC9 Oct 2018CRLR/613/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions filed against orders framing charges under Sections 364-A and 120-B IPC were dismissed. The High Court found no illegality in the trial court's order as prima facie evidence of abduction conspiracy and ransom demand existed.

What did the court decide?

Criminal revision petitions against the impugned orders framing charges are dismissed; stay petitions are also dismissed.

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan Vs State and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 613/2017

¶3

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan Sharma S/o Pandurang Shetty, Resident Of Sector No. 4-C-22, 103-104 Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East), Mumbai.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan

¶7

Deepak Pungaliya S/o Shri Sohan Lal Pungaliya, Resident Of 41-A, Kumbha Nagar, Chanderia Police Station, Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

CONNECTED WITH

¶10

S.B. Criminal Revision No. 1027/2017

¶11

Anil Negi S/o Shri Kailash Chand Negi, R/o Rathi Jyoti Kunj Building, Plot No. 338, House No. G/1, Turba Talab Ki Pal, Navi Mumbai.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan

¶15

Deepak Pungalia S/o Sohan Lal Pungalia, R/o 41, Kumbha Nagar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶16

----Respondents

¶17

For Petitioner-Santosh Shetty : None present For Petitioner-Anil Negi : Mr. Farzand Ali Mr. Abhishek Purohit For Respondent-State : Mr. L.R. Upadhyay, P.P.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶19

Order

¶20

09/10/2018

¶21

These criminal revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioners against the order dated 21.02.2017 passed by the

¶22

(2 of 3) [CRLR-613/2017]

¶23

Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Chittorgarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.104/2011, whereby the trial court has ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A and 120-B IPC.

¶24

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Anil Negi has submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the petitioners to frame charges for the aforesaid offences. It is also submitted that the trial court has not appreciated the material collected by the police during the course of investigation and ordered for framing of charges against the petitioners in mechanical manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Anil Negi has, therefore, submitted that the impugned order is illegal and liable to be set aside.

¶25

Per contra, leaned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these revision petitions and submitted that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as charge-sheet.

¶27

The trial court has taken into consideration the material available on record and given a finding that prima facie evidence of this effect is available on record that the ransom money was drawn by the petitioners and electronic documentary evidence of this nature is also available on record to suggest that the petitioners were in conversation with main accused.

¶28

The trial court is of the opinion that from the material collected by the police during the course of investigation prima facie it appears that the petitioners were involved in criminal

¶29

(3 of 3)

¶30

[CRLR-613/2017]

¶31

conspiracy for abducting the victim and demanding the ransom

¶32

money.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel present for the parties and after going through the impugned order and charge-sheet, I don’t find any illegality in the order impugned.

¶34

Hence, these criminal revision petitions are dismissed.

¶35

Stay petitions also stand dismissed.

¶36

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶37

Abhishek Kumar S.Nos.15-16

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Shetty @ Anna @ Nikolas Madan v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish @ Hurma Vs State

Rawal Ram Vs State

Bharat Prakash Vs State and Anr.

Bardi Chand Vs C.N.B.

Samir Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Negi Vs State and Anr.