Dismissed

Sangram Singh @ Nikki S/O Jagmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2023CRLMB/6073/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed three bail applications filed by accused persons facing murder and RIWA charges. The court denied bail due to the gravity of allegations, active participation in conspiracy, and evidence of contact with co-accused via social media.

What did the court decide?

The bail applications filed by Sangram Singh, Bhoopendra Singh and Raghvendra Singh were dismissed.

Sangram Singh @ Nikki S/O Jagmal Singh Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:41419]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6073/2023

¶4

Sangram Singh @ Nikki S/o Jagmal Singh, R/o Village Kirdoli Bdi, P.s. Nechwa, District Sikar Presently Tenant At Plot No. 19, Yagyadutt Nagar, Vaidhji Ka Chouraha, Niwaru Road, P.s. Kardhani, District Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13134/2023 Bhoopendra Singh @ Bhoopi S/o Mr. Bajrang Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Gangwa, P.s. Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.) Also At Plot No. 83, Greenpark-E, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, P.s. Kardhani- Jaipur West, Jaipur (Raj.) (Presently In Judicial Custody In Central Jail At Jaipur).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, through PP

¶14

Satyendra Singh S/o Mr. Madan Singh, R/o Plot No. 120, Greenpark-B, Nangal Jaisa Bohra, P.s Kardhani, Jaipur South, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13601/2023

¶17

Raghvendra Singh @ Banti S/o Shri Shyam Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Khejroli, Police Station Govindgarh, District Jaipur, Presently R/o Mandir Mode, Flat No. S-01, Gokul Dham Apartment, James Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

¶21

Satyendra Singh S/o Madan Singh Rathore, R/o Plot No.l 120, Green Park B, Nangla Jailabhora, Police Station

¶22

[2023:RJ-JP:41419] (2 of 4)

¶23

[CRLMB-6073/2023]

¶24

Kardhani, Jaipur West.

¶25

----Respondents

¶26

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Jhabar Mal Swami Mr. Ram Kumar Ms. Nachketa Pareek
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. M.K. Sheoran, PP Mr. Ajay Kumar Jain Mr. Dipendra Kumar Mishra Mr. Avatar Singh Mr. Himashu Awasthi
		Mr G.S. Shekhawat
		Mr.Chandra Shekhar Sharma Mr. Mohit Sharma

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶28

Order

¶29

11/12/2023

¶30

These three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been filed on behalf of the petitioners who are in custody in connection with FIR No.1186/2022 PS Kardhani, Jaipur West, Jaipur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, the police has filed chargesheet for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120B and 109 IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/25(6) Arms Act.

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Satyendra Singh submitted a written report to the SHO PS Kardhani, Jaipur inter alia alleging that on 09.11.2022 at about 5:00 PM, his brother Vijendra Singh made a call to him and asked him to immediately come to Lifeline Dental Clinic and that an incident of gunshot has happened with him in Nirmala Vihar. He also told that he has been beaten with iron rods, knives, swords and hammers. It was

[2023:RJ-JP:41419]

[CRLMB-6073/2023]

(3 of 4)

also mentioned in the written report that when he reached Lifeline Dental Clinic, Nirmal Vihar, there was so much rush and his brother was lying in pool of blood on the road and was bleeding profusely. His brother sustained several injuries on his head, hands and other parts of the body. He immediately took his brother on to a vehicle. His brother told that Jitendra Hulwani, Sagar Singh, Ravindra Khanadi and some other boys came in car No. RJ 45 CF 0382 and Bolero No. RJ 23 GA 6934 with common intention to kill him. His brother was taken to SMS Hospital where during treatment, he expired. On the basis of this report, the police registered the FIR No.1186/2022 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, the police has filed the chargesheet in the matter.

¶36

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. They have nothing to do with the alleged incident. They have not been named in the FIR. It is also contended that there is no incriminating evidence available on record to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged crime. It is further submitted that investigation has been completed in the matter and no recovery is to be made from the accused petitioners. The petitioners are behind the bars since their date of arrest and trial will take long time in its conclusion. They thus, prays that the petitioners may be released on bail.

[2023:RJ-JP:41419]

[CRLMB-6073/2023]

(4 of 4)

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the bail applications. It is argued that the accused petitioners were involved in the conspiracy to murder Vijendra Singh. During investigation, the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120B IPC have been found proved and chargesheet has been filed in the matter. it is also submitted that the accused Sangram Singh @ Nikki and Bhoopendra Singh have also criminal antecedents. They submit that the accused petitioners had actively participating in the conspiracy and in touch with other gang members via social media. It is thus, prayed that the bail applications may be dismissed.

¶41

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

¶42

bar and have gone through the material available on record.

¶43

Considering the nature and gravity of the allegations attributed to the petitioners especially that the petitioners are in contact with other accused persons on social media at the time of alleged incident as well as after the alleged incident, which fact has come out during investigation, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed.

¶44

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶45

NIRMALA/Sudhir Asopa /718

Sangram Singh @ Nikki S/O Jagmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangram Singh @ Nikki S/O Jagmal Singh 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

Abhilosh Chaturvedi S/O Shri Sudheer Chaturvedi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaheer Ansari @ Jaheer Ahmed S/O Sh. Jamil Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Ved Prakash Soni Son of Shri Radha Mohan Soni, Vs State of Rajasthan

Devkaran @ Foruu Son of Saubhag Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh S/O Heeralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Buddhi Prakash @ Vinod S/O Radhey Shyam Vs State of Rajasthan