Anil S/O Murarilal Vs the State of Rajasthan

This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.90/2024 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 120B of IPC and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act.

¶14

[CRLMB-12070/2025]

¶15

[2025:RJ-JP:40454] (2 of 5)

¶16

Vide order dated 19.02.2025, first bail application (No.13756/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony complainant- Samay Singh Meena & Investigating Officer, who recorded statement of the complainant on the very next day of lodging the FIR. Now, both the witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has no connection whatsoever with the alleged crime. The testimonies of both the complainant and the investigating officer clearly reveal that at the time of the incident, the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, and he has been made an accused solely on the basis of the police interrogation of the co-accused. Counsel points out that the complainant, in his cross-examination, admitted that the petitioner was unknown to him and that he named the petitioner only because the accused persons were calling out each other’s names during the incident. It is also emphasized that no test identification parade was conducted in this matter. Moreover, during his court testimony, the complainant did not say the petitioner as one of the persons involved in the incident. Learned counsel further submits that the investigating officer has also admitted that, according to his investigation, the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged incident and was implicated only on the allegation of criminal conspiracy, on the premise that he had provided a weapon to the co-accused. However, this

(3 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:40454]

[CRLMB-12070/2025]

alleged fact is solely based on the police interrogation of the coaccused, and the investigating officer himself has conceded that no other evidence exists on record against the petitioner apart from that statement. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in judicial custody since 02.05.2024, and his further detention would not serve any fruitful purpose. Trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude, as only two witnesses out of twenty-seven prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel, assisted by the counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. They submit that the petitioner is named in the FIR and is a habitual offender, as sixteen other criminal cases have been registered against him. In view of his criminal antecedents, it is urged that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

¶22

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record, including the testimonies of the complainant and the investigating officer. 6. It is a settled principle of law that mere pendency or registration of other criminal cases cannot, by itself, be a ground to refuse the facility of bail. The court is first required to examine the specific role attributed to the accused in the present case. Prima facie, from the testimony of the investigating officer, it appears that the petitioner was arrested solely on the basis of the interrogation of a co-accused. No test identification parade was conducted, nor has the complainant stated in his testimony that

(4 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:40454]

[CRLMB-12070/2025]

the petitioner, who is present in the dock, was involved in the alleged offence.

¶27

Considering the contention put forth by the counsel for the petitioner, role attributed to the petitioner, material available on record in the form of charge sheet including testimony of complainant as well as investigating officer, and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the present bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶28

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Anil S/o Murarilal shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

¶30

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

(5 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:40454]

[CRLMB-12070/2025]

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

¶35

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶36

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶37

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶38

LALIT MOHAN /262(s)

Anil S/O Murarilal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Murarilal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawab Shekh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Girraj Nayak S/O Sh. Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom Suman S/O Late Sh. Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarjeet Singh S/O Shri Subesingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Choudhary @ Bhanu S/O Ramrukh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Gaurav S/O Shri Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan