Allowed

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Dec 2024CRLMB/11073/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed combined bail applications filed by four accused persons facing charges under IPC Sections 302, 115, and 120-B for alleged murder conspiracy. Relying on the affidavit from the High Security Jail seal breach allegations, the court deemed it just and proper to grant bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each, with liberty to prosecution to file cancellation application if involved in future criminal case

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:51496]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 11073/2024

¶4

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Resident of Sogar, Police Station, Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Jail At Bharatpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12467/2024

¶11

Ballu @ Balram S/o Shri Kailash Chand, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Teen Thok Jaghina, P.S. Udhyog Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.) (Presently In Central Jail, Bharatpur).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 13600/2024

¶17

Shubham Saraswat S/o Chetan Swaroop, Aged About 25 Years, R/o House No. 3, Kailashpuri, Police Station Kotwali, Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Bharatpur).

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 15839/2024

¶23

Paramveer S/o Hardam Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Dungra Teen Thok Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Bharatpur. (Accused Petitioner Is In Central Jail Bharatpur).

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶27

----Respondent

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Anurag Sharma with Ms. Shreya Hatila Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan

[2024:RJ-JP:51496]

[CRLMB-11073/2024]

(2 of 4)

Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Rathore, PP Mr. Paras Mal, Superintendent of Jail Ajmer Jail, High Security

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶34

16/12/2024

¶35

These bail applications have been filed by the accusedpetitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.271/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 115 & 120-B of IPC.

¶36

The First Bail Application bearing Nos.8935/2024 of accusedpetitioner- Lokesh S/o Jahan Singh & 9014/2024 of accusedpetitioner- Ballu @ Balram S/o Shri Kailash Chand were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail applications after conclusion of the investigation.

¶37

Heard.

¶38

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers as well as the affidavit of the Superintendent of High Security Jail, Ajmer.

¶39

The nature of allegations levelled against the accusedpetitioners is that on instruction from one Pankaj Jagheena, who was confined in High Security Jail, Ajmer, they were preparing for committing murder of one Prabhav, Lucky and Himmat, who are the members of the opposite gang of Kripal Jagheena. In the investigation report, it has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer that Pankaj Jagheena was having conversation on mobile

[2024:RJ-JP:51496]

[CRLMB-11073/2024]

(3 of 4)

phone from inside the jail with some of the accused-petitioners on various occasions, in between a period of about four months. It has also been stated that Pankaj Jagheena had conversation on mobile phone with accused-petitioner- Balram Jagheena from 24.01.2024 to 25.05.2024 for about 262 times and likewise he had conversation with other accused persons namely; Rohit Hatheni, Mohit Wrestler, Shubham etc.

¶44

This Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 called explanation from the Superintendent High Security Jail, Ajmer as to how Pankaj Jagheena, who is confined in jail, is able to have conversation on cell phone with some of the accused-petitioners who are outside the jail and further to explain how Pankaj Jagheena managed the mobile phone to charge it’s battery for a long period of about four months.

¶45

The Superintendent of High Security Jail, Ajmer has submitted the affidavit with the details and the criminal cases registered in regard to seizure of mobile, charger etc. from the prisoners. 8. If any person who is facilitating the prisoner outside the jail by providing mobile phone, cell phone, battery or charger to have conversation with the outside person in committing some offence, is like abetment of an offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the offence not committed which is punishable under Section 115 of IPC, then the persons who are facilitating in the conversation by providing the cell phone and other equipments, would also be accused under purview of Section 120-B of IPC, but no such person has been arrayed as an accused by the Police. In such circumstances, possibility of implication of

[2024:RJ-JP:51496]

[CRLMB-11073/2024]

(4 of 4)

the accused-petitioners on false and fabricated facts, cannot be ruled out. The accused-petitioners are in custody for last more than 4-5 months and the Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and apart from the abetment of commission of offence, no actual offence has been committed by the accused-petitioners.

¶50

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and so also the facts stated above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 10. These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶51

However, it is made clear that in case the accused-petitioners are found involved in any other criminal case in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of the bail.

¶52

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each connected case files.

¶53

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶54

DIVYA SAINI /18-21

Lokesh Son of Jahan Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lokesh Son of Jahan 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

Saras Rana W/O Laxmikant Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaheed S/O Chandsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satyanarayan S/O Jamnalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sushil Kumar @ Pintu Son of Phoolsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu S/O Dhanna @ Dhanna Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj Lothiya S/O Shri Madan Lal Lothiya Vs State of Rajasthan