Mahesh Chand S/O Shri Harikishan Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:16204]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14473/2024

Banwari Lal @ Sarpanch S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Paadadi Topkhana, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1316/2025 Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Harikishan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Peeladanda, Police Station Baharawanda Kalan, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail- Sawai Madhopur)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Bairwa Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Vishnu Bohra, for complainant

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :- 21/04/2025

¶19

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.89/2024 registered at Police Station Bahrawanda Kalan, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2) & 103(1) of BNS. Later on,

[2025:RJ-JP:16204]

[CRLMB-14473/2024]

(2 of 3)

police filed charge-sheet in the court concerned for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the petitioners have been entangled in this case due to previous animosity. It is also submitted that both complainant and the accused persons are of same community and village. Cross-cases have also been registered inter se between the parties. Learned counsel contend that during investigation, the story narrated by the complainant/first informant - Smt. Panchi has been disbelieved as during investigation, statement of one witness namely Sh. Rameshwar Gurjar, whose hut is located near the place of alleged incident, was recorded in which, he clearly stated that he did not see 8-10 people at the time of alleged incident near his hut and he only saw two people there and that, there was no female, present there at the time of the alleged incident. It is thus contended by them that the complainant/first informant-Smt. Panchi is not a reliable witness and she is narrating a false story. Learned counsel further argue that petitioners were not present at the place of alleged incident. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed. Petitioners are in custody since long and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶25

Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail applications. It is submitted that according to the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency, the accused persons hatched a

[2025:RJ-JP:16204]

[CRLMB-14473/2024]

(3 of 3)

conspiracy and committed the crime. It is also submitted that the accused persons were having enmity with the complainant side and under personal vengenance, they murdered Radhamohan and Hargovind in a very planned manner. It is also submitted that during investigation, offences under Sections 103(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS have already been found proved against the petitioners. The accused persons were in contact with each other through mobile phone at the time of commission of crime. They actively participated in the commission of crime. They thus, submit that looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations attributed to the accused-petitioners, they do not deserve the indulgence of bail.

¶30

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also considering the material made available before me including charge-sheet; as also looking to the gravity of offence; nature of allegations and manner of commission of crime, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioners on bail. In the case at hand, two persons Radhamohan and Hargovind have lost their lives. Thus, looking to gravity of offence, I am not inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the accused petitioners.

¶31

Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. However, observation made herein does not prejudice trial in any manner.

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

GAUTAM JAIN /373-374

Mahesh Chand S/O Shri Harikishan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Chand S/O Shri Harikishan 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

Nirmala Kothari W/O Sh. Ashok Kothari Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Sk Finance Limited (Previously Known as S.K. Fincorp Limited) Vs Jahid Hussain S/O Vajid Hussain

Tirupati Vihar Vikas Samiti Vs Jaipur Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

Dhanwan Alias Monu Son of Satish Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singhal S/O Shri Kalyan Prasad Singhal Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Maharaj Singh Sinsinwar S/O Sh. Leeladhar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan