Dismissed

Mithhu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2023CRLMB/7326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a bail application filed by four accused persons facing trial for murder and robbery. The high court found prima facie sufficient evidence, including call details, CCTV footage, and recoveries corroborating custody statements, to hold the petitioners accountable for the gruesome murder of a temple guard.

What did the court decide?

Bail application dismissed; petitioners to remain in judicial custody.

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

¶1

[2023:RJ-JD:34843]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 7326/2023

¶4

Mithhu S/o Kalu Kanjar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhamniya, Kachhola, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.) (At Present In Judicial Custody At Chittorgarh Jail)

¶5

Pappu S/o Kalu Kanjar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dhamniya, Kachhola, Distt. Bhilwara (Raj.) (At Present In Judicial Custody At Chittorgarh Jail)

¶6

Sattu S/o Nathu Kanjar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Khedli, Sadas, Distt. Chottorgarh(Raj.)

¶7

( At Present In Judicial Custody At Chittorgarh Jail)

¶8

Deva S/o Nathu Kanjar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Khedli, Sadas, Distt. Chottorgarh(Raj.)

¶9

(At Present In Judicial Custody At Chittorgarh Jail)

¶10

----Petitioners

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mohd. Javed Gouri, P.P.

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR Order

¶16

13/10/2023

¶17

The petitioners are facing trial in connection with FIR No.21/2022 dated 04.02.2022, lodged at PS Chanderia, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 396/302, 458, 380, 412 IPC.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the FIR was lodged against unknown persons and there is not an iota of evidence indicating involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged crime.

[2023:RJ-JD:34843]

[CRLMB-7326/2023]

(2 of 3)

It was urged that the petitioners had neither stolen the goods/ articles/ ornaments from the temple after murdering the guard of the temple nor were they in possession of stolen goods/ articles/ ornaments, at the time of their arrest. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution story against the petitioner mainly rests upon call locations and alleged recoveries including the wooden plank and a piece of wood, made on the basis of their statements, while they were in the custody. It was thus, submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

¶23

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in their prime age; they do not have any criminal antecedents; no recovery is due to be made from them; trial pending against them is likely to consume sufficiently long time.

¶24

Learned counsel thus implored the Court to grant bail to the petitioners in the present case.

¶25

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record including the statements of the complainant (PW-2).

¶27

Having considered submissions advanced at bar and facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, challan papers and statements of the complainant (PW-2), this Court prima facie finds that the petitioners are accused of gruesome murder of the guard deputed at Hanuman Temple, Chanderia. This Court also prima facie finds that sufficient evidence indicating involvement of the petitioners in the commission of alleged crime

[2023:RJ-JD:34843]

[CRLMB-7326/2023]

(3 of 3)

is available on record in the form of call locations and call details of the accused-petitioners showing that the petitioners were in close contact with each other on the date of alleged incident. The CCTV footage recovered by the investigating agency during the course of investigation, also prima facie establish that the petitioners had actively participated in the commission of alleged crime.

¶32

Apart from aforesaid electronic evidence, this Court also finds that recoveries of goods/ articles/ ornaments allegedly stolen from the temple and wooden plank containing blood stains, allegedly used to commit murder of the deceased, have been made on the basis of disclosure statements of the petitioners. This Court finds that merely because the recoveries had been effected on the basis of the disclosure statements made by the petitioners while they were in custody, the same cannot be disbelieved as the same had been corroborated by subsequent discovery of alleged weapon and stolen goods/ articles/ ornaments, making the statements recorded during police custody, admissible to the extent of subsequent discovery.

¶33

In view of discussion made herein above and considering the nature and gravity of alleged offence and severity of punishment and the role attributed to the present petitioners in the commission of alleged offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶34

Accordingly, the second application for bail stands dismissed.

¶35

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶36

Tikam/-

Mithhu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithhu 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharda Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharamveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Bharat Kumar Dhakad Vs State of Rajasthan

Yograj Singh @ Joga Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Verma Vs State

Bablu Sheikh @ Rustam Ali Vs State of Rajasthan