Dismissed

Vansh @ Bhola S/O Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2024CRLMB/2896/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. were dismissed by a single bench. The Court held that despite the charge-sheet against some co-accused being dismissed from other applications, the gravity of murder charges and the specific involvement of the petitioners made their cases non-parity for bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications for all three petitioners were dismissed and the matter was disposed of.

Vansh @ Bhola S/O Vishnu Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:16168]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2896/2023

¶4

Vansh @ Bhola S/o Vishnu, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Maladevi Mohalla Chomukha Bazar Barana, Police Station Kotwali Baran (Raj.) ( Presently Confined At District Jail Baran)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7561/2023 Afshan Khan S/o Abdul Hakeem, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kausar Colony, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Baran)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12237/2023 Samrat Singh Chouhan S/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Maladevi Mohalla, Chaumukha Bazar, Baran, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Kapil Gupta with Mr. R.S. Sinsinwar and Mr. Chitransh Saxena Mr. Girish Khandelwal with Ms. Swati Sharma
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. C.G. Chopra, PP Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

[2024:RJ-JP:16168]

[CRLMB-2896/2023]

(2 of 5)

04/04/2024

All these three applications were filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in sessions Case No. 26/2023 arising out of FIR No. 806/2022 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Baran wherein learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the bail application of present petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the petitioners are in custody. Since these bail applications pertain to same case, therefore we are disposing of these applications with common order.

¶28

In bail application No. 12237/2023 filed on behalf of Samrat Singh, none appeared to argue the matter. This instant application is preferred aggrieved from order dated 05.06.2023 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. passed by learned Sessions Judge, Baran as no one is appearing on behalf of petitioner therefore we are considering the grounds raised in the petition as written submissions on behalf of petitioner and disposing of the bail applications on the basis of written submissions.

¶29

Learned counsel for petitioner Vansh @ Bhola while referring the parchabayan of Kuldeep Pathak has submitted that the petitioner was neither named in the FIR nor his role was specifically attributed in any of the material submitted by the investigating agency. He further submitted that only on general and omnibus allegations of participation, present petitioner was arrayed as an accused in the matter. He also submitted that after arrest on 28.11.2022, the petitioner is in custody and not much progress was reported by the trial court to speed up the trial. He also submitted that some of the co-accused were already enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He also referred

[2024:RJ-JP:16168]

[CRLMB-2896/2023]

(3 of 5)

the order dated 19.06.2023 of Tarun @ Tanu, from whom the knife was recovered and was enlarged on bail. He also submitted that the main allegation for inflicting blow with knife is upon other persons but not on present petitioner therefore looking to the role from the evidence on record, the petitioner is entitled for bail. At last, he referred the statement of Kuldeep recorded before the trial court on 13.02.2024 as PW-2 and submitted that the witness admitted that the name of petitioner was not mentioned in Parchabayan.

¶34

Learned counsel for Afsan Khan has submitted that the petitioner was falsely implicated due to animosity. He also referred the charge-sheet and further submitted that no recovery was effected from present petitioner and role of present petitioner was not defined even in Parchabayan. He further submitted that no recovery of knife was effected from present petitioner and chargesheet under Section 4/25 of Arms Act was not filed against the petitioner which means that present petitioner has not used any sharp edged weapon against deceased or any other person. At last, he submitted that petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 16.11.2022. He also referred the statement of PW-1 and PW-2 to submit that the role of present petitioner was not defined, so he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶35

Bail application of Samrat Singh was filed but no one is present on behalf of him and on the ground mentioned in the petition, it was stated that co-accused Tarun @ Tanu was released on bail and petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 15.11.2022. 6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel

[2024:RJ-JP:16168]

[CRLMB-2896/2023]

(4 of 5)

for complainant submitted that a group of accused has attacked with knife having deadly intentions, which resulted into death of one person and life threatening situation for three persons. He specifically submitted that the petitioner is entitled for bail as they are main accused in the matter.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for parties along with learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 8. A perusal of record indicated that bail application of Tarun @ Tanu was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 19.06.2023 as bail application No. 4348/2023 but this court has dismissed the bail (revision petition No. 1027/2023) with respect to Juvenile “X” on 23.08.2023 wherein considered the fact that Tarun @ Tanu was already granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. While considering the interim bail of Ankit due to marriage of his sister from 06.04.2024 to 12.04.2024 but dismissed the regular bail application with liberty to re-file same. 9. Herein this case, the fact is quite clear that on Parchabayan of Kuldeep @ Chotu recorded on 14.11.2022, an FIR NO. 806/2022 was registered at P.S. Kotwali, Baran and police after investigation has filed charge-sheet against Virat Singh, Tarun, Samrat Singh and Afsan Khan under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 460, 326, 307 and 302/149 IPC and also filed against Vansh @ Bhola, Ankit under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 460, 326, 307, 302/149 IPC and 4/25 of Arms Act. Further filed chargesheet for Juvenile under Section 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 406, 326, 307, 302/149 IPC.

¶41

We have considered the post mortem report of deceased Nikhil Sharma which indicated that due to injuries on abdomen

[2024:RJ-JP:16168]

[CRLMB-2896/2023]

(5 of 5)

(intestine) resulting in hemorrhage, he died. The fact also indicated that in the entire incident, Rohit @ Bittu, Ravi Pathak, Kuldeep @ Chotu, Vishvendra Pathak were also injured. After filing of charge-sheet two witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 were examined before the trial court though it took little longer time to examine the complainant and injured by the trial court but same is not a ground. Herein it is expected of the trial court to examine all material witnesses including injured at earliest. Herein the evidence of PW-2 indicated the involvement of all three petitioners. Since the charge is for murder and also for attempt to murder with a group of persons who used deadly weapons, while attacking the house of complainant looking to the gravity of the matter, and the period of one and a half year in custody is not sufficient to release the petitioners on bail therefore the applications of present petitioners cannot be treated as in parity with Tarun @ Tanu.

¶46

Accordingly, bail applications of petitioners Vansh @ Bhola S/o Vishnu, Afshan Khan S/o Abdul Hakeem and Samrat Singh Chouhan S/o Vikram Singh are hereby dismissed.

¶47

Misc. applications stand disposed of.

¶48

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶49

PREETI VALECHA /532-534

Vansh @ Bhola S/O Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vansh @ Bhola S/O Vishnu 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

Milap Chand Son of Shri Moti Chand, Vs Shri Vimal Chand Jain Son of Shri Moti Chand Jain

Gopi and Ors. Vs Ganga Ram and Ors.

Pratap Son of Ram Chandra, Vs Bhawani Shankar Son of Laxman

Zahida Begum W/O Late Mohammad Zafar. Vs Nirmala Bai W/O Mohanlal Galav

Surendar Singh S/O Umrav Vs Saroj W/O Jaisingh

Kamlesh Jain Son of Late Shri Ghanshyam Lal Vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. through