Allowed

Virendra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 May 2023CRLMB/1986/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur allowed a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. He found the FIR lacked the petitioner's name, eyewitnesses did not identify him, and phone transcripts only showed assistance with a vehicle and cartridges, not full conspiracy knowledge, thus granting bail on bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail by executing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Virendra Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/015313]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1986/2023

¶4

Virendra Gurjar S/o Harisingh, Aged About 27 Years, Kot Thana, P.s. Gadi Bajna, Teh. Bayana, Dist. Bharatpur (Raj.). (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted byMr. Ashok Kumar Panwar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Anil Joshi, G.A-cum-AAG, assisted by Mr. Rajat Chaparwal
	Mr. Manish Dadhich, for the
	complainant.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶11

17/05/2023

¶12

This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No.192/2022 Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 450, 149, 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3/25(1A), 27 of Arms Act.

¶13

As per prosecution story, an FIR was lodged by the complainant Hazari Ram stating inter alia that his daughter Geeta was married to one Om Prakash son of co-accused Jeev Raj. The husband of Geeta is a feeble minded person therefore, she did not want to cohabit with him. However, her father-in-law-co-accused Jeev Raj wanted Geeta to stay with his son, therefore, he threatened the complainant and his family that they would forcibly take away her with them. As per prosecution, in the midnight of 10.05.2022, at about 3-3.30 a.m., co-accused Jeev Raj, Bhanwar

[2023/RJJD/015313]

[CRLMB-1986/2023]

(2 of 5)

Lal, Shiv Narayan, Sunil, Rajendra, Poonam, Ram Singh, Richpal came heavely armed to the dhani (residence) of the complainant in three vehicles and started indiscriminate firing at the deceased. The son of the complainant namely, Rameshwar Lal succumbed to the fire arm injuries, on the spot.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Attention of the Court was drawn towards the post mortem report of the deceased Rameshwar Lal dated 10.05.2022, prepared by S.P. Medical College and associated Group of Hospitals wherein, the Medical Board has opined that cause of death is ‘Haemorrhage and Shock’ due to ante-mortem injuries caused by firearm.

¶19

Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the statements of complainant, Kumari Manju-daughter of deceased, Smt. Sharmila-wife of deceased and Shri Sachin-son of deceased, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that neither the complainant nor the aforesaid eye witnesses have named/shown presence of the petitioner at the place of incident.

¶20

Learned counsel submitted that only significant evidence against the petitioner is the statement of one Ram Gopal son of Pabu Ram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who on the basis of series of events as narrated by complainant- Hazari, has named the petitioner as one of the accused who were present at the site of the incident. Learned counsel submitted that the statement of Ram Gopal is more in the nature of hearsay evidence. Learned counsel submitted that interestingly, Hazari Ram in the FIR and his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. did not

[2023/RJJD/015313]

[CRLMB-1986/2023]

(3 of 5)

mention/state the presence of present petitioner at the place of incident.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that to link the petitioner with the alleged crime, certain call details between petitioner and co-accused Sunil have been made part of the charge sheet. However, the telephonic conversation between petitioner and co-accused Sunil available on record does not indicate that the petitioner had any knowledge about co-accused persons planning/conspiring to kill the deceased.

¶26

In view of aforesaid, it was submitted that the case established against the petitioner does not fall under the ambit of Section 120-B IPC. Learned counsel thus, implored the Court to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner.

¶27

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that true it is that in the FIR and statements of the eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the name/presence of the petitioner has not been mentioned/shown but from the perusal of the challan papers, it is evident that petitioner played an active and a vital role in commission of alleged crime.

¶28

The transcript of telephonic conversation between petitioner and co-accused Sunil is sufficient to indicate that petitioner had full knowledge about the planning/conspiracy hatched by the coaccused persons for commission of alleged crime. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that apart from telephonic conversation, a Bolero vehicle used in commission of crime has also been

[2023/RJJD/015313]

[CRLMB-1986/2023]

(4 of 5)

recovered by the investigating agency on the basis of the information provided by the petitioner.

¶33

On the strength of aforesaid arguments, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant prayed that concession of bail may not be granted to the petitioner.

¶34

Having gone through the FIR, challan papers and so also the statements of the complainant as well as eye witnesses recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., this Court prima facie finds that from perusal of transcript of the telephonic conversation between petitioner and co-accused Sunil though, it is evident that the petitioner helped co-accused persons in procuring cartridges and Bolero vehicle but the same does not indicate that the petitioner had full knowledge about the planning of the co-accused persons to kill the deceased.

¶35

It is also to be noted that the charge sheet does not show that the place from where Bolero vehicle was recovered was in the exclusive knowledge of the petitioner only. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor by any of the eye witness coupled with the fact that no identification proceedings/test was conducted by the Investigating Officer at the hands of complainant or eye witnesses.

¶36

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶37

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

[2023/RJJD/015313]

[CRLMB-1986/2023]

(5 of 5)

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Virendra Gurjar S/o Harisingh , arrested in connection with FIR No.192/2022 Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, shall be released on bail; provided he executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Petitioner shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶42

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶43

KshamaD/-

Virendra Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Gurjar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogendra Singh Negi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghanshyam Vaishnav @ Sonu Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prasad Beragi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar @ Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

Ranaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Lal Vs State of Rajasthan