Allowed

Vikram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC26 May 2023CRLMB/2754/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted bail to Vikram, accused of abduction and murder, relying on a comparison with bail granted to co-accused Sunil and insufficient independent evidence connecting petitioner to crime beyond the erstwhile co-accused statement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall be enlarged on bail conditioned to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the trial judge.

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

¶1

[2023/RJJD/017558]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2754/2023

¶4

Vikram S/o Sh. Balbir Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Kanheti, Kanheti (158), Charkhi Dadari, Bhiwani, Haryana- 127307. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Bikaner).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Trun Kadian.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶11

ORDER

¶12

26/05/2023

¶13

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 365, 364A, 302 and 34 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of coaccused Vinay Dhawan recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned counsel submitted that except the statement of the co-accused, there is nothing on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that from the perusal of FIR and charge-sheet,

[2023/RJJD/017558]

[CRLMB-2754/2023]

(2 of 5)

it is evident that co-accused Vinay Dhawan was demanding money from the deceased owing to some business relations. Learned counsel submitted that in the entire FIR and charge-sheet, there is no evidence of motive against the present petitioner.

¶19

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that co-accused Sunil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2023 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.1805/2023. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Learned counsel thus, implored the court to accept the bail application.

¶20

The order dated 3.5.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Sunil is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶21

“This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh for offences under Sections 365, 364-A, 302 and 34 of IPC.

¶22

As per prosecution, on 08.05.2022, complainant’s son Kuldeep Sharma was abducted by co-accused- Vinay Dhawan with three-four other persons. Kuldeep Sharma was taken to Haryana where he was beaten brutally, whereafter a video call was made by Kuldeep Sharma to his father i.e. the complainant, informingthat he has been kept hostage by co-accused Vinay Dhawan andother persons demanding ransom of ₹60,00,000/-. Thecomplainant could not arrange the money demanded by theaccused persons. As per prosecution, co-accused Vinay Dhawan after brutally beating the son of the complainant (Kuldeep Sharma), got him admitted in a private hospital situated at Rohtak (Haryana), from where he was taken by the complainant and family members to a higher medical centre (S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur), however, Kuldeep Sharma succumbed to the injuries on 14.05.2022. The post mortem of the deceased was conducted at S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur and in the post mortem report, the Medical Board opined that the cause of the death of the deceased is coma due to ante mortem head injury (injury No.1 – abrasion of 3x2 cm at left forehead) which was opined to be individually as well as cumulatively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

¶23

The investigating agency after making thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioner, co-

(3 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/017558]

[CRLMB-2754/2023]

accused- Vinay Dhawan, Vikram @ Sunda before competent criminal court on 25.11.2022. As per the charge sheet, deceased Kuldeep Sharma had business relations with co-accused Vinay Dhawan wherein coaccused- Vinay Dhawan financed five vehicles purchased by deceased Kuldeep Sharma, however, after making payment of first installment, the deceased failed to pay remaining installments and owing to aforesaid dispute, a conspiracy to abduct the deceased and demand ransom from family members of the deceased was hatched by coaccused Vinay Dhawan.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as he had no motive to abduct or commit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that from perusal of the charge sheet, it would be evident that there is no evidence on record except the information provided by co-accused Vinay Dhawan under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act to connect the petitioner with the present case. Learned counsel submitted that no witness has named present petitioner, rather allegations of abduction and assault have been made against co-accused Vinay Dhawan.

¶29

Learned counsel also submitted that from the charge sheet, it would be evident that the house where deceased was confined and beaten, belongs to one Deepak @ Bunty. In the charge sheet filed by the investigating agency, Deepak @ Bunty has been enlisted as a prosecution witness at serial No.5 so as to affirm the statements given by him under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the statements of Deepak @ Bunty are not even part of the charge sheet. To substantiate this contention, a copy of the office report dated 16.02.2023 issued by the court of Civil Judge cum Judicial Magistrate, Begu, District Chittorgarh, in response to an application submitted by the advocate seeking certified copy of the aforesaid statement was placed on record.

¶30

It was vehemently submitted that as per the charge sheet, certain call details between co-accused Vinay Dhawan and Vikram @ Sunda have been made part of the investigation, but no such evidence to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime are available in the charge sheet. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any evidence to prima-facie prove the fact that the petitioner was accompanying co-accused Vinay Dhawan at any time and also in absence of any incriminating material available on record to connect him with the alleged crime, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶31

It was submitted that challan has already been filed; the petitioner is behind bars and trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude.

¶32

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

(4 of 5)

[2023/RJJD/017558]

[CRLMB-2754/2023]

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

¶37

Having gone through the FIR, challan papers and various documents attached with the challan papers; so also the office report dated 16.02.2023 issued by the competent criminal court in response to the application dated 13.02.2023, seeking certified copy of the statement of Deepak recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; challan has already been filed; trial is likely to take sufficiently long time, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶38

Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioner-Sunil S/o Surendra Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-, each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.”

¶39

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to dispute the fact that co-accused Sunil has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 3.5.2023.

¶40

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

¶41

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶42

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Vikram S/o Sh. Balbir Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.71/2022 registered at Police Station Parsoli, District Chittorgarh, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before

¶43

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-2754/2023]

¶44

[2023/RJJD/017558]

¶45

the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

¶46

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.

¶47

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶48

/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.9

Vikram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram 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

Kirshanlal @ Kishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Khodiwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Piyush Vs State of Rajasthan

Kana @ Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sant Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijesh Vs State of Rajasthan