Dismissed

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/O Shiv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Oct 2024CRLMB/4454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications by two accused in a murder case where eight stab wounds caused death. Court noted charge framed with Section 149 IPC, gravity of injuries, and ongoing trial; found no ground to enlarge the accused on bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/O Shiv Singh… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:43065]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4454/2024

¶4

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/o Shiv Singh, R/o Nipaniya Thana Shamgarh District Mandsor M.p. At Present House No. A- 54 Chhatrapura Talab Thana Vigyan Nagar Kota City. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4998/2024 Aslam Khan @ Aanshu S/o Munawar, R/o House No. 45, Behind Faqiro Ki Masjid, Kotadi, P.s. Gumanpura, Kota City (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan, Mr. Rajesh Gadwal, Mr. Waseem Akram For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶17

Order

¶18

10/10/2024

¶19

These bail applications were preferred by petitioners-accused Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa and Aslam Khan @ Aanshu in a matter arising out of FIR No. 554/2023 registered at P.S. Kaithun, District Kota (Rural) under Section 302 IPC.

[2024:RJ-JP:43065]

[CRLMB-4454/2024]

(2 of 5)

Learned counsel for petitioner(s) submits that petitioners are innocent and they are falsely implicated by the police. He further submits that the petitioners are not named in FIR and there is no identification parade so as to implicate them in murder of Manoj. Learned counsel for petitioner further referred the statement of Nand Bihari (eye witness) and submits that role of present petitioner was neither defined nor any act was attributed. He further submits that as per police investigation, nothing was recovered from disclosure statement by any of the petitioner. He submits that at the most recovery of motorcycle cannot be considered as weapon of offence. He further submits that as per investigation knife was recovered from Mangat, Ajay, Raj Suthar and Tushar but there is no knife recovery from any of the petitioner. He further submits that injured Manoj succumbed to stab injuries and none of the petitioner was in possession of any knife. He further referred the statement of witnesses and submits that two groups were partying at the crime scene and they all are in inebriated condition as they have consumed liquor. He also referred the statement of injured Neeraj Mehta & Ajay Mehra and submitted that none of them having named present petitioners and police has not conducted any identification parade. He also submits that the statement of Neeraj was already recorded before the Trial Court wherein also no identification was conducted even in Court proceedings. He also referred the statement of prosecution witnesses and submits that both the petitioners were not known to any of the witness including injured, who were neither identified any of the eye-witness nor attributed role of any

[2024:RJ-JP:43065]

[CRLMB-4454/2024]

(3 of 5)

of the petitioner. At last, he submits that the petitioners are in custody for fairly long time and keeping them behind the bars would serve no purpose.

¶28

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor.

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of material clearly reflect that on 24.12.2023 Ram Raj Suman (brother of deceased Manoj) has lodged FIR No. 554/2023 for brutal murder of his brother by knife blows. During investigation, police has recorded statement of eye-witnesses and collected the evidence. After evidence, police has recommended charge-sheet against a juvenile T @ P, Ankaj Meena @ Rama, Ajay Verma @ Marode, Vishal Bheel @ Bakya, Aslam Khan @ Aanshu, Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa, Rajesh Dubey @ Bacha @ Punni, Raj @ Kalu but kept pending investigation against Ashu @ Murga under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

¶30

A perusal of post mortem report of Manoj indicate Nine ante mortem injuries and out of 9 injuries 8 were stabbed wounds. According to opinion of medical jurist the cause of death is shock as a result of ante mortem chest injuries. A perusal of number of injuries inflicted on vital part clearly reflect intention to commit murder.

¶31

A perusal of report clearly indicate that no one was named in FIR by complainant as he was not an eye-witness. During investigation, police has recorded statement of several witnesses including Nand Bihari, Neeraj Mehta and Ajay Mehra. Out of

[2024:RJ-JP:43065]

[CRLMB-4454/2024]

(4 of 5)

aforesaid statement of Neeraj Mehta was recorded before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Kota in sessions case No. 174/2024 as PW-4. The prosecution has also recorded statement of PW-2 Nand Bihari before the Trial Court.

¶36

A perusal of statement recorded before Trial Court reflect that PW-2 Nand Bihari stated the name of persons who were on spot calling each other by name and one of them was Katappa. When we perused the statement of PW-4 Neeraj Mehta then in Examination-in-Chief Neeraj Mehta has named the involved persons on the basis of pronouncement of name by other group and these are Rama, Katappa, Murga, Murda and Dubey.

¶37

A perusal of entire police investigation indicate that the witnesses have deposed that they can identify the persons involved in the incident but it appears that neither police nor Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court maneuvered for identification parade. The role of police cannot be questioned at any stage but certainly a poor investigation may be to assist accused. The role of Public Prosecutor is still ongoing and it is duty of the Trial Court to remain a vigilant participant while conducting sessions trial.

¶38

We have gone through the memo of recoveries after disclosure from four persons and also the fact that the motor-bike were recovered from possession of present petitioners but herein the charge was framed with aid of Section 149 IPC, therefore, looking to gravity of case wherein eight stabbed wounds were inflicted upon deceased Manoj, which resulted into his death is sufficient to explain the blood-bath in the matter.

[2024:RJ-JP:43065]

[CRLMB-4454/2024]

(5 of 5)

At this stage, it is not possible for the Court to consider any issue on merits but the trial is going on and I do not see any reason on the basis of which both the petitioners can be enlarged on bail.

¶43

In view of aforesaid, the bail applications preferred by petitioners Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa and Aslam Khan @ Aanshu under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 B.N.S.S.) are hereby dismissed.

¶44

A copy of this order be sent to Trial Court and also to the DGP, Rajasthan, Jaipur with direction to acknowledge receipt.

¶45

Misc. applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶46

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶47

MONU /2-3

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/O Shiv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Toofan Singh @ Rahul @ Katappa S/O Shiv Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nand Kishore Vs Rajendra Kumar and Anr.

Durga and Ors. Vs State

Sheoraf Khan Vs State

Dalmiya Dairy Industries Ltd. Vs U.O.I.

Phoolchand S/O Prahlad Vs Kartar Singh S/O Babu Lal

Akshay Chaudhary S/O Rajendra Chaudhary Vs State of Rajasthan