Dismissed

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son of Bharat Singh, Adopted Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Gurjar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 May 2024CRLMP/1868/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the trial court's order which dismissed his Section 91 Cr.P.C. application. The Court held that the trial court was correct in refusing specific directions for evidence collection during investigation.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition was dismissed with no relief granted.

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1868/2023

¶3

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son Of Bharat Singh, Adopted Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Nahida, Police Station Salempur, District Dausa, At Present R/o Near Agrasaid College, Kishan Nagar, Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj).

¶4

----Accused-Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhawani Shankar Sharma, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

17/05/2024

¶12

This criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.03.2023, whereby, application of accused-petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary and contrary to law. The accusedpetitioner has taken a plea that he has falsely been implicated in this case and arrested by the Police and sought information regarding CCTV footage and mobile number of concerned Police Officials, therefore, the impugned order dated 10.03.2023 may be quashed and the application of the accused-petitioner for seeking call details and CCTV footage may be allowed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner has placed

¶15

reliance upon the judgments of Swarn

[CRLMP-1868/2023]

(2 of 3) Si

gh @ Baba Vs. S t at

¶20

18^th February 3 0 .1 0

¶21

¶22

2014 .

¶23

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes this criminal misc. petition and submits that learned trial court rightly dismissed the application filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. as the matter was under investigation. Any interference by the Court would come in purview of hindrance to the investigation. It is also argued that after investigation, the Police has already charge-sheeted the accused-petitioner and the accused-petitioner is free to move an application before the trial court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for seeking details as required. 5. Heard and perused the impugned order dated 10.03.2023. 6. Learned Additional Ssessions Judge No.1, Hindaun City, District Karauli by way of the impugned order has categorically opined that at the stage of investigation, the Court cannot direct the Investigating Agency to collect the evidence or to investigate the matter in a particular manner.

¶24

[CRLMP-1868/2023]

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

It is admitted that subsequently, the Police has chargesheeted the accused for offences under Sections 8/21, 8/29 of the NDPS Act and 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶27

In my view, learned trial court has not committed any legal error in arriving at observation that at the stage of investigation, the trial court cannot give a direction to collect the evidence and to investigate the matter in a particular manner.

¶28

It is a settled law that at the phase of investigation, the Court cannot give specific direction to the Agency to investigate a matter in a particular manner or to collect specific evidence. The petitioner is at liberty to submit the appropriate application before the concerned Competent Court for calling the requisites.

¶29

The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed.

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

Sunita/765

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son of Bharat Singh, Adopted Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Gurjar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajbahadur Singh Gurjar @ Raj Kasana Son of Bharat Singh, Adopted Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Gurjar, 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

Batturam Saini S/O Revdram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Kumar S/O Sh. Ajit Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar S/O Mangeram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sonu Kanwar D/O Shri Chatar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Udayram S/O Shri Surajmal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Sharma Son of Kanhiya Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan