Dismissed

Niraj Nigotiya Son of Shri Brajbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Aug 2021CRLMB/4445/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Hon'ble Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications filed by Niraj Nigotiya and Santosh under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 279, 336, 307, 302 and 120B IPC. Holding it not a fit case due to the gravity of the offence and reliable evidence.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail applications dismissed; copy of order placed in connected file.

Niraj Nigotiya Son of Shri Brajbhan Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4445/2021

¶3

Niraj Nigotiya Son Of Shri Brajbhan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Khedali Gurjar P.s - Sadar Hindon Presently Residing At 56, Jabdamba Colony, Agra Road, Paldi Meena, Jaipur - 302031 (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4855/2021

¶10

Santosh Son Of Sumer Singh Gurjar, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Jagdishpura, Police Station Balghat, Tehasil Todabheem, District Karoli (Raj.)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P., Jaipur.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. on behalf of Mr. Rajat Ranjan with Mr. J. K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP. Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

¶17

05/08/2021

¶18

The present anticipatory bail applications have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.373/2018 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for the offence(s) under Sections 279, 336, 307, 302 and 120B IPC.

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[CRLMB-4445/2021]

¶21

Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have been wrongly implicated in this case. Petitioners have also joined the investigation. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that deceased Neetu was subjected to honour killing by her family. Name of the petitioners are wrongly mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that deceased Neetu fell in love affairs with Neeraj Nagotiya but her family was not happy with this relationship. So, family members of Neetu were responsible for honour killing. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not present at the time of incident as they were in Jaipur. So, petitioners be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments in Ganpat Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan ; Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3988/2017 , Shobha Ram Vs. State of U.P. ; Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No.9784/1991 , Yunis and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. ; Criminal Miscellaneous 1^st Bail Application No.4937/1998 , Raghbir Singh @ Lucky and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab ; Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.25848/2020 .

¶23

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that Neeraj Nagotiya and co-accused had deliberately hit to the deceased Neetu and her brother by Scorpio when they were reached near the temple of Morgya Baba. After that incident, Neetu died on 20.11.2018. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that eye witnesses namely, Arvind, Suresh and Lokesh clearly stated the

¶24

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4445/2021]

¶25

story in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that Narpat Singh in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. clearly stated that Neeraj Nagotiya and his friends had deliberately hit to the deceased Neetu Gurjar when she was going with her brother on motor-cycle. So, looking to the gravity of the offence, anticipatory bail application be dismissed.

¶26

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. Looking to the gravity of the offence and allegation levelled against the petitioners, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.

¶28

A copy of this order be placed in connected file.

¶29

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶30

Seema/23-24

Niraj Nigotiya Son of Shri Brajbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Nigotiya Son of Shri Brajbhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal S/O Hazari Vs State of Rajasthan

Ayub S/O Noormohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Devilal Roj Son of Shri Chiganlal Roj Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Son of Sumer Singh Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Ghasiram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Tofiq Ahmed S/O Kabir Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan