Dismissed

Sumit S/O Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Mar 2024CRLMB/1085/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Praveer Bhattacharyya dismissed the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The High Court rejected the plea due to the gravity of offences including attempt to murder and the established role of the petitioner in hiring others to assault the victims.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sumit S/O Raj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:11779]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1085/2024

¶4

Sumit S/o Raj Singh, R/o Bhartari Mandir Road Behror, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli- Behror Raj.

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Babulal Nasuna, PP,
		Mr. SudhirJain

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

07/03/2024

¶13

Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 10/2024 (CIS No.14/24) registered at Police Station Behror, District Kotputli Behror for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 143, 323, 341, 325, 307, 427 and 120B of IPC, the accused-petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner Sumit has falsely been implicated in the case. There is no direct evidence indicating the fact that the accusedpetitioner Sumit conspired with the other co-accused and assaulted at injured Deepak Yadav and her wife. He further submits that eight accused were arrested by the police and in the disclosure statement of co-accused namely Prashant, Ranveer and Aakash, the name of accused-petitioner was disclosed. He further submits that all the co-accused have already been enlarged on

[2024:RJ-JP:11779]

[CRLMB-1085/2024]

(2 of 3)

regular bail. The injury sustained to Deepak Yadav and her wife were found to be simple in nature. He further submits that custodial investigation of accused-petitioner is not required, therefore, the anticipatory bail application may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the victim vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the victim submits that accused-petitioner Sumit hired other co-accused Deepak who was warden in the institution of present petitioner and thereafter co-accused Deepak hired the other co-accused and assaulted the injured Deepak Yadav and Jyoti Yadav. As a result of attack Deepak Yadav sustained eight injuries and Jyoti Yadav has also sustained fourteen injuries. He further submits that after medical examination of Jyoti Yadav, fracture of left parietal bone was found and as per the opinion of the Doctor, the injuries sustained to Jyoti Yadav were found to be dangerous to life, if not treated timely.

¶20

Learned counsel for the victim also submits that accused Sumit Yadav was in regular contact with the other co-accused Deepak Yadav and has transferred money to the Deepak Yadav, thus it is apparent from the investigation conducted so far that accused-petitioner hired the other co-accused Deepak and thereafter co-accused Deepak further hired the other co-accused Prashant, Ranveer, Aakash, Praveen & Manoj for assaulting at complainant and his wife. Thus, looking to the investigation conducted so far, involvement of present petitioner is apparent and considering the gravity of the offence, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

[2024:RJ-JP:11779]

[CRLMB-1085/2024]

(3 of 3)

Heard and perused the case diary.

¶25

The investigation report reveals that the co-accused Deepak Yadav has received money from the accused-petitioner through Paytm and he was in regular contact with the present accusedpetitioner. There is specific allegation against co-accused Deepak Yadav that he hired the other co-accused namely Prashant, Ranveer, Aakash, Praveen & Manoj to assault the complainant Deepak Yadav and his wife.

¶26

Considering the factual report and injuries sustained to wife of complainant and also to the complainant, I am not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶27

Therefore, the anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. of accused-petitioner Sumit is dismissed.

¶28

Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

Keshav/177

Sumit S/O Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit S/O Raj 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

Gaurishankar Sharma S/O Shri Brijkishore Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Roberto Della Valle Vs State

Sanjay Vs State

Kumarchand S/O Mangalram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Samay Singh S/O Ram Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhanwar Lal Meena S/O Chauthmal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan