Rajesh S/O Lalchand Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:623]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16542/2024

Rajesh S/o Lalchand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Udawala, Police Station Manoharpur District Jaipur Rural At Present Shop No. 1 And 2 Shyam Nagar, Nadi Ka Phatak, Chandra Paradise, Nadi Ka Phatak Murlipura, Jaipur Police Station Murlipura ( At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sunita Kumarti Meena Mr. Anoop Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

06/01/2025

¶13

The accused-petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.633/2023 registered with the Police Station Kotwali (DAusa), District Dausa for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323, 325, 427, 302 & 120-B of IPC.

¶14

Counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioner has been implicated in this case with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. Counsel further submits that the allegations against the present accused-petitioner is that he took the other accused persons from Jaipur to the place of incident in a vehicle of which he was the driver and it has also come out during investigation

[2025:RJ-JP:623]

[CRLMB-16542/2024]

(2 of 4)

that the other accused persons who were travelling in the vehicle of the present accused-petitioner, were said to be going to celebrate the birthday of one Sitaram Sarpanch and for worshipping at Mehndipur Balaji. Counsel also submits that the accused-petitioner was not aware of the purpose for which the other accused persons were going in his vehicle, because he was asked by his owner to take these persons as passengers to the place they wanted to go. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner has no criminal intention or motive to commit any such offence and has been implicated in this case merely because he was the driver of the vehicle. Counsel also submits that the accused-petitioner is unknown to the complainant and the other prosecution witnesses and he is not named in the first information report. It is also submitted that no test identification parade was got conducted of the present accused-petitioner. Counsel also submits that there is no cogent evidence against the accused-petitioner so as to connect him with the alleged crime. She also submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2024 and two of the co-accused namely; Sitaram @ Gyani S/o Shri Hiralal and Shankar S/o Mukesh, who were also driver of the vehicles in which accused persons went from Jaipur to the place of incident, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2024 and the case of the present accusedpetitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of coaccused who have been enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the accused-petitioner and submits

[2025:RJ-JP:623]

[CRLMB-16542/2024]

(3 of 4)

that all the accused persons, including the present accusedpetitioner gathered at Jaipur and from there they went to Dausa and committed murder of the deceased, so as to grab the land. He further submits that the present accused-petitioner has fully participated in the conspiracy in committing the offence and therefore, he does not deserve any liberty of bail.

¶24

Considered the submissions made at bar so also perused the case diary.

¶25

As regard the test identification parade of the present accused-petitioner is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor answers that during investigation, no test identification parade of the present petitioner was got conducted.

¶26

The present accused-petitioner is the resident of Manoharpur and is unknown to the complainant party and after his arrest, no test identification parade has been conducted. The allegation against the petitioner is that he in his car brought the other accused persons from Jaipur to the place of incident.

¶27

On consideration of the investigation report, this Court finds that the case of the present petition is in no manner distinguishable from the case of co-accused namely; Sitaram @ Gyani S/o Shri Hiralal and Shankar S/o Mukesh, who were also driver of the vehicles in which accused persons went from Jaipur to the place of incident, have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 23.07.2024.

¶28

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:623]

[CRLMB-16542/2024]

of the case and having regard the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the fact that no test identification parade was got conducted during investigation, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶33

This bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶35

ARTI SHARMA /28

Rajesh S/O Lalchand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh S/O Lalchand v. 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

Gangaram S/O Ghasi Lal Vs State of Rajashthan

Aarif S/O Shri Varkhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Tilakchand S/O Munshiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Manjeet Singh S/O Iqbal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramnarayan S/O Shri Cheetarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlakhan S/O Chelbihari Jat Vs State of Rajasthan