Allowed

Tag Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2024CRLMB/2903/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application in a murder-conspiracy FIR; applicant's role was limited to recce of the deceased and his case stood on better footing than co-accused Bhupendra already released. Following its earlier reasoning, this Court granted bail under Section 439 CrPC with personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant Tag Singh to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, appearing on all hearing dates.

Tag Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:17965]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2903/2024

¶4

Tag Singh S/o Shri Narsingh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Doli, Ps Kalyanpur, Dist Balotra. At Present Surdarshan Nagar, Sanchore, Ps Sanchore, Dist Jalore. (Lodged In Sub Jail, Sanchore)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Firoz Khan Mr. Ansarul Hak Ansari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. SK Bhati,PP

¶9

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Order

¶11

24/04/2024

¶12

This application for bail has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) in connection with FIR No.424/2023 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore for the offences under Sections 341, 302/34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶13

Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that allegation against the present applicant is that he had done recce of the deceased person Laxman.

¶14

Learned Counsel further submitted that applicant’s case is identical with the case of co-accused Bhupendra, who has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2024, in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12718/2023. He also added that

(2 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:17965]

[CRLMB-2903/2024]

applicant’s case stands on better footing than that of co-accused Bhupendra and prayed that the present applicant be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor is not in position to dispute the aforesaid position of fact & law. 5. While allowing the bail application of co-accused Bhupendra, this Court has observed thus:-

¶20

“2. Dr. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case and without there being any evidence against him, he has been arrested on 12.08.2023.

¶21

3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant has been included vindictively and although applicant’s name is not mentioned in the FIR, he has been arrested solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of one Mukesh S/o Jagdish, who was brought on production warrant.

¶22

4. Learned counsel submitted that as per the chargesheet, the allegation against the applicant is that he took part in the conspiracy, whereas no evidence suggesting motive is on record. He added that no evidence in the form of call details etc. have been brought on record which could suggest that the applicant had any nexus with the other accused person or he had reasons to conspire for the murder.

¶23

5. Learned counsel argued that as per the prosecution case, accused persons including the applicant hatched the conspiracy in the room of hotel Amar International, which belongs to the applicant who is uncle of the co-accused (Mukesh Khichar). He argued that neither any CCTV footage of the hotel showing presence of the present applicant with the shooters has been recovered by the Police from the management of the said hotel nor do the statement of manager of hotel suggests in any manner that the applicant was involved in the conspiracy.

¶24

6. Learned Government Advocate cum Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the facts on record clearly point towards the role of the present applicant in hatching the conspiracy. In this regard he navigated the Court through the CO diary and the statement of Mukesh and pointed out that he along with other persons Prakash, Kamlesh Godara, Vishnu and the present applicant sat in the room of Amar International Hotel and made plans of the murder of the deceased.

¶25

7. Apart from above statement, learned Public Prosecutor had not been able to point out any evidence in

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JD:17965]

[CRLMB-2903/2024]

the form of statement or call details, whatsapp Chat, CCTV footage etc., in order to bring the said accusation home.

¶30

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including CO diary.

¶31

9. Concededly, the applicant is inculpated for hatching the conspiracy to murder the deceased. Neither any active role nor overt act has been assisgned to him, nor his presence has been shown at the spot.

¶32

10. Even if the best case of the prosecution, on the basis of statement of co-accused Mukesh (which he gave on 24.08.2023) is taken into account, the case boils down to offence of hatching a conspiracy, punishable under Section 120-B of IPC. But such solitary statement of Mukesh not supported by statement of any other coaccused cannot be enough to conclude that the applicant was a conspirator, that too, in absence of any motive to murder or reason of hatching the conspiracy or keeping enmity with the deceased. That apart, as per the statement of the Assistant Manager of hotel (Harish Visht) only the co-accused Mukesh Khichar came to the hotel about 15 days before the date of incident and the applicant has not been named. As against this though Prakash in his disclosure statement dated 13.08.2022 states that about 10 months ago he gave Rs. 25 lacs to Vishnu Khudala in Amar International Hotel, but he does not show applicant's presence.

¶33

11. Sans any cogent evidence, only on the basis of the statement of one of the co-accused persons alone, the applicant cannot be kept incarcerated awaiting conclusion of the trial, which is sure to take substantial time given the list of witnesses."

¶34

Following the reasoning given in the case of co-accused Bhupendra, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused-applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.

¶35

Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is allowed. The applicant Tag Singh S/o Shri Narsingh arrested in connection with FIR No . 424/2023 registered at Police Station Sanchore, District Jalore shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(4 of 4)

[CRLMB-2903/2024]

[2024:RJ-JD:17965]

Applicant shall be required to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶40

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶41

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶42

395-raksha/-

Tag Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tag 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

Buddha Ram Choudhary Vs Union of India

Surendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Yakub Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Vidhya Tiwari Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohabat Singh Vs Raj. State Road Transport Cor.