Allowed

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2024CRLMB/5203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Four co-accused sought regular bail in FIR No.20/2024 for extortion and firing under Sections 327, 307, 384 IPC and the Arms Act. Noting no identification parade was conducted, CCTV footage analysis was absent on record, and no direct incriminating material against Rahul Yadav, the court enlarged all petitioners on bail.

What did the court decide?

All four accused enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, monthly presence at police station till trial ends.

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav Vs State of… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34842]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 5203/2024

¶4

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murlidhar Yadav, R/o Ramsagar Ki Dhani, Village Jharli, Tehsil Shrimadhopur District Sikar. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Neem Ka Thana).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5220/2024 Ramkaran Singh S/o Suwalal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sirsa Wali Dhani Tan Divrala, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.). (Presently Confined In District Jail At Sikar)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5291/2024

¶16

1. Sohan Swami S/o Madan Lal Swami, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Dolati Johadi Tan Anatpura, Police Station Ajitgarh, District Neem Ka Thana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Neem Ka Thana Jail)

¶17

Rahul Yadav S/o Chauthmal, Aged About 18 Years, Aged About 18 - 1/2 Years, R/o Dhani Mannawali, Tan Lisadiya, Police Station Shri Madhopur, District Neem Ka Thana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Neem Ka Thana Jail)

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5203/2024]

¶23

[2024:RJ-JP:34842]

¶24

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Surya Pratap Singh
	Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar
	Mr. Narendra Verma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Gurjar,PP

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶26

Order

¶27

16/08/2024

¶28

The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.20/2024 registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Neem Ka Thana for the offences under Sections 327, 307 & 384 IPC and Sections 3/25 & 3/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submit that the petitioners namely Manoj Kumar Yadav, Ramkaran Singh, Sohan Swami and Rahul Yadav have been falsely implicated in these matters. It is contended that no Identification Parade was conducted by the Investigating Agency in course of investigation. It is also contended that the name of the petitioner Manoj Kumar Yadav is not mentioned in the FIR. The allegation of causing opening firearm for extorting money against the petitioners are per se false. No firearm injury was received by the complainant Naveen Soni. It is also vehemently argued that there is no evidence on record to show that the petitioners were involved in the incident. The petitioners are in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, their bail applications may be allowed.

[2024:RJ-JP:34842]

[CRLMB-5203/2024]

(3 of 4)

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications. It is contended that the complainant Naveen Soni in his statement rendered under Section 161 CrPC has specifically mentioned that accused petitioners Ramkaran Singh and Sohan Swami opened fire at him. The incident was also seen by other eye-witnesses. It is also contended that all the petitioners are having previous criminal record and are involved in extorting money from the businessmen. Therefore, considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners and the allegation levelled against them, the bail applications of the petitioners may be dismissed.

¶34

Heard and perused the charge-sheet. 5. It is alleged against the petitioners Manoj Kumar Yadav and Ramkaran Singh and Sohan Swami that they opened fire at Naveen Soni as he refused to pay them the amount and in the FIR name of Sohan Swami and Ramkaran Singh have been mentioned for opening the fire at Naveen Soni. In the statement rendered under Section 161 CrPC, the eye-witness Mukesh Saini has stated that two persons were uttering their name to each other as Manoj and Ramkaran. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused petitioners were knowing the complainant and the witnesses, prior to the incident.

¶35

Admittedly, the police did not conduct any Identification Parade from the eye-witnesses about the involvement of the present petitioners namely Manoj Kumar Yadav, Sohan Swami and Ramkaran Singh in the alleged incident. In the chargesheet, CCTV footage alleged to be procured from the shop of Hitesh have been submitted. The analysis of CCTV footage is not available on record.

[2024:RJ-JP:34842]

[CRLMB-5203/2024]

(4 of 4)

Similarly, it is alleged against the co-accused Rahul that at the instance of him, all the three accused attempted to extort Naveen Soni and after his refusal, opened fire at Naveen Soni. There is no incriminating material/record in direct involvement of the present petitioner i.e. Rahul in the alleged crime, therefore, considering the above facts, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶40

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners (1) Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Murlidhar Yadav, (2) Ramkaran Singh S/o Suwalal, (3) Sohan Swami S/o Madan Lal Swami and (4) Rahul Yadav S/o Chauthmal and in connection with FIR No.20/2024 registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Neem Ka Thana shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge. The accused are also directed to mark their presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioners to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioners for cancellation of their bail before the concerned court of sessions.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

MR/14 to 16

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Murlidhar Yadav 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

Rameshwar Prasad Choudhary Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Mangat Singh, Vs Jasvir Singh S/O Shri Prabha Singh

Lokendra Singh @ Loki S/O Bhanwar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Hiralal S/O Nandaram Vs State of Rajajsthan

Surendra S/O Soneram Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Omwati W/O Bachchu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan