Allowed

Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/O Hamam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Aug 2025CRLMB/14870/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail sought under Section 483 BNSS by four accused charged under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC for murder based on circumstantial evidence, including recoveries without blood stains and inconclusive FSL report. Court granted bail considering custody period and prolonged trial.

What did the court decide?

All four petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/O Hamam Singh Vs State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31083]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14870/2024

¶4

1. Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/o Hamam Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Hannu Sardar Ki Dhani, Tan Kotkasim, Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj) At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas

¶5

Sandeep Singh S/o Harnam Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Hannu Sardar Ki Dhani, Tan Kotkasim, Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj) At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas

¶6

Harpal Singh @ Pardhan S/o Harnam Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Hannu Sardar Ki Dhani, Tan Kotkasim, Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj) At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16110/2024 Kashmir Singh S/o Harnam Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Hannu Sardar Ki Dhani, Tan Kotkasim, Police Station Kotkasim District Khairthal Tijara (Raj.) At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas.

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Yogesh Chawla for Mr. S.S. Ola Mr. Pallav Choudhary

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶16

11/08/2025

¶17

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.157/2024 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed chargesheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC.

[2025:RJ-JP:31083]

[CRLMB-14870/2024]

(2 of 3)

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that it appears from the record that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating evidence is appearing against the petitioners. It is submitted that at the time of arrest of petitioners, no evidence was available with the Investigation Agency however, later on, by effecting some recovery, petitioners have been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged incident took place in the intervening night of 10-11 May, 2024 and petitioners have been arrested on 16.05.2024. It is contended that bamboo danggis have been shown to be recovered at the instance of petitioners but admittedly, no blood stains were found on bamboo danggis. It is contended that so far baniyan and shirt of deceased are concerned, FSL report shows that blood group is inconclusive. Learned counsel argues that there is no last scene evidence in this matter. It is argued that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined out of 20 prosecution witnesses. It is argued that further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶23

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that location as well as recovery shows that petitioners committed murder and thereafter, they tried to dispose of the dead body.

¶24

I have considered the contentions.

[2025:RJ-JP:31083]

[CRLMB-14870/2024]

(3 of 3)

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶29

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/o Hamam Singh, (2) Sandeep Singh S/o Harnam Singh, (3) Harpal Singh @ Pardhan S/o Harnam Singh, and (4) Kashmir Singh S/o Harnam Singh, shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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.

¶30

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

¶31

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶32

CHARU SONI /34-35

Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/O Hamam Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/O Hamam Singh 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

Ashish Sharma S/O Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sitaram Saini S/O Shri Parmanand Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Porwal S/O Late Shri Mangilal Porwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Parsoti @ Purushottam S/O Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Son of Shri Gumanram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jayveersingh S/O Deedar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan