The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the petitioner's second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a murder case involving criminal conspiracy. The Court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in hatching the conspiracy and facilitating the crime based on investigation material.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2810/2024
Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Tinwari, Ps Mathania Dist Jodhpur. Presently R/o Ward No. 4, Near P.w.d. Guest House, Nawa, Dist Nagaur. (Lodged In Nagaur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Adv. |
|---|---|
| Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP |
| Mr. Ramavatar Singh for complainant |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
24/05/2024
This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.102/2022, registered at Police Station Nawa Shahar, District Nagaur, for the offences under Sections 148, 341, 427, 302 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
As per the prosecution, on 14.05.2022, when Jaipal Poonia was returning from Court situated in Nawa, co-accused persons namely Rajesh Lideria, Rajesh Motalia, Ranjeet Singh @ Ajeet, Sandeep Kumar @ Junia and Tejpal Singh alighted from a bolero car which suddenly stopped in front of his vehicle and thereafter,
[CRLMB-2810/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
(2 of 6)
fired at him causing various injuries to him. Jaipal Poonia succumbed to the injuries, while he was enroute to Jaipur for treatment.
As per the prosecution, Jaipal Pooonia’s murder was committed on the basis of a criminal conspiracy hatched by coaccused- Moti Singh, motivated by previous animosity between them. The petitioner and the other co-accused persons played an active and vital role in the murder of Jaipal Poonia in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by co-accused- Moti Singh to commit the murder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel contended that there is not even an iota of evidence available on record to establish that the petitioner had played any active role in hatching the purported conspiracy of killing the deceased- Jaipal Poonia. He submitted that the petitioner was working as a driver being employed by co-accusedMoti Singh and had not played any active/direct or indirect role in the murder of Jaipal Poonia. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that it is a well settled position of law that a conspiracy ordinarily is hatched in secrecy and therefore, this Court is required to take into consideration the circumstantial evidence available on record, by keeping in mind that to hatch a conspiracy, meeting of the minds is an essential attribute to establish that the members of such a conspiracy had agreed to commit the crime. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to show
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
[CRLMB-2810/2024]
(3 of 6)
that petitioner was privy to or a participant in the conspiracy or the act of murder for which he has been arrested.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation, sufficient evidence and material has been gathered by the Investigating Agency to establish the complicity of the petitioner in the commission of the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that in the conspiracy to commit the murder of Jaipal Poonia, co-accused- Moti Singh was a leader and the present petitioner was a participant. Learned counsel thus, submitted that looking to the seriousness of accusations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, and after perusing the challan papers submitted by the Investigating Agency, this Court prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, Jaipal Poonia’s murder was committed on the basis of a criminal conspiracy in which co-accused- Moti Singh was may be the mastermind of it, however, a number of persons, including the present petitioner were participants.
This Court prima facie finds that as per the prosecution, on 14.05.2022, Jaipal Poonia was returning from the Court after attending the proceedings, when a bolero car suddenly stopped in
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
[CRLMB-2810/2024]
(4 of 6)
front of his vehicle. Thereafter, co-accused persons namely Rajesh Lideria, Rajesh Motalia, Ranjeet Singh @ Ajeet, Sandeep Kumar @ Junia and Tejpal Singh came out of it and started vandalizing the vehicle of the deceased- Jaipal Poonia, by iron rods blows. Ranjeet Singh @ Ajeet fired gunshots towards him, whereas another coaccused- Krishna Kumar remained seated in the said bolero car with a pistol. All accused persons after committing the alleged crime, fled away from the place of incident.
It is pertinent to note here that as per the prosecution, the assailants were engaged/hired by co-accused- Moti Singh for committing the alleged crime through one Kuldeep Singh R/o Nizampur (Haryana). The assailants in order to commit the alleged crime, on 13.05.2022 at about 06:00 pm., reached near Govindi Toll Plaza, Nawa from Rainwal, where the petitioner along with coaccused- Moti Singh received them. The assailants thereafter, accompanied co-accused Moti Singh and the present petitioner to a guest house situated at Vishwamitra Salt Company, Nawa where they stayed during the night.
On the next day, on 14.05.2022, co-accused- Moti Singh left for Jaipur along with the petitioner in his private vehicle so that his role in commission of crime does not come to the surface. However, he was continuously in contact with another co-accusedFiroz @ Farooq who was conducting recce of deceased- Jaipal Poonia, co-accused- Moti Singh, who in turn, was furnishing all the information regarding the movement of the deceased- Jaipal Poonia to Krishna Kumar through whatsapp call, who was allegedly driving the offending Bolero vehicle.
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
[CRLMB-2810/2024]
(5 of 6)
It is a settled law that though, mere knowledge in itself is not sufficient to accord complicity to accused for an offence under Section 120-B IPC, however, for a person to conspire with another, he must have knowledge of what the co-conspirators were wanting to achieve and thereafter, having the intent to further the illegal act, he has taken recourse to a course of conduct, to achieve the illegal end or facilitate its accomplishment.
After a close scrutiny of the material available on record, this Court finds that sufficient material in the form of CDRs, CCTV footages, call locations, recoveries made at the instance of coaccused persons are available on record, indicating the fact that the petitioner had full knowledge with regard to hatching of the criminal conspiracy to commit the alleged crime. Not only that, prima facie evidence is also available on record to show that the conspirators always discussed his/their plans to commit the murder in front of the petitioner and that he facilitated coaccused- Moti Singh by accompanying him and taking him to various places etc.
In view of the aforesaid discussions and keeping in view the evidences/materials gathered by the Investigating Agency in the present case, the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged commission of crime cannot be ruled out at this stage. Thus, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
It is however, made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the
(6 of 6) [CRLMB-2810/2024]
[2024:RJ-JD:22560]
statements of the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court. It is expected from the learned trial Court that the statements of the Investigating Officer shall be recorded on priority basis.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
29-himanshu/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner had complicity in the criminal conspiracy to commit murder as per the prima facie material on record.
Whether the petitioner deserves bail given the gravity of the offence and allegations against him.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Hanuman Ram
State Of Rajasthan
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
