Dismissed

Karandeep Sheoran Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Sheoran v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023CRLMB/2375/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a bail application filed by the petitioner, who was convicted of murder. The court held that due to the grave nature of the offence involving conspiracy to hire professional shooters to kill a deceased engineer, it was not a fit case to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed preventing enlargement on bail.

Karandeep Sheoran Son of Shri Rajendra Singh… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/007686]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2375/2023

¶4

Karandeep Sheoran Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh Sheoran, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of House No. 1115, Sector No. 16-17, Hissar, Police Station Civil Lines, District Hissar, At Present Tenant/resident Of Flat No. 8B, Tower 2, M3M, Golf Estate, Sector 65, Gurgaon, Police Station Sector 65, Gurgaon(Haryana) . (At Present Lodged In Distt. Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. V. R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Amar Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA- Cum-AAG with
		Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat, Adv.
		Mr. B. S. Chauhan, Adv.
		Mr. S. P. S. Chauhan, Adv.,
		Mr. VijaySingh,Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶11

Order

¶12

21/04/2023

¶13

The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in connection with FIR No. 318/2021 Registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 34 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 03.09.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. He further submits that charges have been framed under Section 302/120B IPC against the petitioner. After that,

[2023/RJJP/007686]

[CRLMB-2375/2023]

(2 of 3)

statement of as many as 29 witnesses have been recorded during the trial. He further submits that evidence adduced by the witnesses do not reveal any motive and intention of the petitioner to kill Rajindra Chawla. He further submits that as per FSL report, pistol recovered from co-accused was not used in this case and there is no enmity between the petitioner and deceased. Conclusion of trial may take long time. Hence, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned GA-Cum-AAG as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is Managing Director of M/s. E-5 Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and he wanted to change the design of bridge but deceased had refused to accept the proposal of the petitioner and recommended to withhold crores of rupees of the petitioners’ company. So, petitioner and other co-accused hatched a conspiracy to kill Rajendra Chawla and they hired professional shooters. Professional shooters shoot the deceased. So, looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, the bail be dismissed.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned GA-Cum-AAG and learned counsel for the complainant. 5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had got the contract to build bridge from NHAI. Deceased Rajendra Chawla was Resident Engineer in U.R.S. Scott Wilson India Pvt. Ltd. Deceased had supervised and monitored the construction of the petitioners’ company and gave a report to NHAI in which deceased

[2023/RJJP/007686]

[CRLMB-2375/2023]

(3 of 3)

recommended to withhold crores of rupees of the petitioners’ company and found lacunae in the construction. Investigating Officer, during investigation collected various correspondence between petitioner and deceased. These correspondence also reveals that deceased was not happy with working of the petitioners’ company. Petitioner wanted to change the design of bridge but deceased was against the said proposal. So, petitioner wanted to remove the deceased from his way and petitioner and other co-accused hatched a conspiracy and engaged the professional shooter and provide them pistol and brought them to shoot the deceased. Investigating Officer collected ample evidence against the petitioner and other co-accused. Hence, looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶25

Accordingly, the 2^nd bail application filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

¶26

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶27

Seema/1

Karandeep Sheoran Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Sheoran v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karandeep Sheoran Son of Shri Rajendra Singh Sheoran 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

Vinod Kumar and Ors. Vs Smt Kamla Devi and Ors.

Rati Ram Rawat Vs Asstt Engineer J v v N L Kotputali and Ors.

Ramesh S/O Shri Ram Kunwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Vs Naresh Kumar and Ors.

K K Agarwl Vs the Commissioner Wcc Jaipur

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Bhagwan Das Vs Rajesh Sharma S/O Shri Kishangopal Sharma