Ravindra @ Kalu S/O Rishpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3220/2025

Ravindra @ Kalu S/o Rishpal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Pancholi, Police Station Manpur, District Dausa. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Dasua).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Ashvin Garg Ms. Vaishnavi and Mr. Nonit Hatila
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Manju Dave, PP Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal,
		Mr. Rajan Kumar Meena and Mr. Veerendra Singh for
		Mr. Madhav Mitra,senior advocate

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

06/08/2025

¶13

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Ravindra @ Kalu S/o Rishpal Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.189/2021 dated 23.07.2021 registered at P.S. Manpur, District - Dausa , for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323 rws 149, 302 rws 149 and 427 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

(2 of 7)

no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that complainant who is son of deceased has lodged a report on 23.07.2021 for incident of night of 22.07.2021 and he is not an eyewitness. He further submitted that as per report a group of persons have made an assault upon deceased and a case with aid and assistance of Sections 147 and 149 IPC was registered by police. He further submitted that deceased is uncle of petitioner and already there is a pending dispute and animosity between the parties. He further submitted that on 23.07.2021 police has received information about accidental injury upon Sanjay Gujjar and same was recorded by police. 4. He further submitted that at the time of post-mortem when police has asked for report, then none of the close relatives of deceased were ready to lodge a report and same was recorded in daily diary by police. He specifically referred both the entry in daily diary were submitted by police along with charge sheet. He also submitted that the case of accident was given a color of murder after a premeditated plan and witnesses were implanted and present petitioner was arrayed as an accused. He further submitted that till date 19 witnesses were examined by prosecution and still trial will take time.

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

(3 of 7)

Learned counsel for petitioner referred the statement of PW11 particularly cross-examination and submitted that her admission clearly reflect that the deceased was having animosity with present petitioner and there is no contact between both the families. He further submitted that PW11 has stated that she was standing near divider and she has not helped her husband while he was allegedly assaulted. He further referred his cross-examination and submitted that her cross-examination clearly clears the doubt and it is sufficient to show that she is a planted witness and her conduct is unnatural. He further referred admission of PW1 and submitted that witness Santosh (PW-13) is a close relative of PW11, and in criminal case registered by petitioner accused against PW11 she is also facing trial. He further referred PW13 Santosh and submitted that PW13 was named as an eyewitness and he is close relative of PW11 and only because he is relative he has been planted as witness. He further submitted that the cross-examination clearly indicated that he was 30-40 meters behind motorcycle of deceased but he has not intervened at the time of alleged assault or soon after the accident, which is enough to show unnatural conduct. He further referred statement of PW1 complainant who is son of deceased and pointed out discrepancies in his statement and submitted that on advice of Sardar Singh who is a lawyer current report is registered by PW1.

¶24

He further submitted that there is improvement in the statement and PW1 has secured a job after death of his

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

(4 of 7)

father. He also referred statement of PW6 Dr. Aslam Sheikh and submitted that injuries upon body of deceased were bruises and crushed injuries but none of the injuries were result of any assault. He also referred order dated 23.10.2024 and bail application no.16042/2023 wherein petitioner accused Mahesh was granted bail by a co-ordinate bench of this Honorable court. The petitioner has submitted that other accused were granted bail and petitioner is also entitled for bail on the basis of parity.

¶29

He also referred bail order dated 13.02.2025 in bail application no.1741/2021 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this court wherein Vijay and Naresh were granted bail. He further placed reliance upon judgment in case of Hussain and others v. Union of India, Manu/SC/0274/2017 and submitted that petitioner accused is in custody since 03.08.2021 and on the basis of period of incarceration, he is entitled to be released on bail.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

¶31

Learned counsel for complainant has also opposed the bail application and submitted that present petitioner accused is named as main accused in FIR and on the basis of allegations, police has investigated the matter. He further submitted that during investigation some recoveries were effected on the basis of information disclosed by present petitioner. He further referred disclosure statement and also recovery memo along with mobile location. He referred FIR

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

(5 of 7)

No. 100/2025 registered on 15.02.2025 at PS Padpada, District Dausa, FIR No. 104 /2025 registered on 26.07.2025 at PS Padpada and FIR No. 107/2025 dated 29.07.2025 registered at PS Padpada, District Dausa and submitted that petitioner is having a crime record and he is operating gang from jail and reports are registered against him. He further referred statement of PW1 and PW13 particularly their examination in chief and submitted that even during crossexamination they remained firm and gave explanation to entire incident. He also referred statement of PW6 Dr. Aslam Sheikh and submitted that the main injury is attributed to present petitioner, who is responsible for causing deadly assault upon deceased. He further submitted that the delay is caused by petitioner accused and not by prosecution.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶37

On the basis of report dated 23.07.2021 lodged by PW-1 Shirshak Gurjar, who is son of deceased for assault upon his father by present petitioner and others resulting in his death, a case is registered. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against Ravindra, Pradeep, Ashok and Bhupendra and kept pending against remaining 13 accused under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. As per statement submitted on record, 19 witnesses were examined till 30.05.2025 and trial is in progress. A list of witness reflect that police has included 42 witnesses but mostly are formal witnesses and they can be left by prosecution. It is upon the trial court and

(6 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

the prosecution to consider the advice so as to expedite the trial. The petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 03.08.2021 and period of incarceration is more than 4 years. The material on record indicated that Lakhan Singh, Sardar Singh, Alok, Man Singh, Shankar, Pradeep, Vijay and Naresh Chand were granted bail. The bail application of Umesh was dismissed on 12.03.2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶42

In case of Hussain and Ors. Vs. Union of India (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the case when accused was in custody since 04.08.2013 and granted bail only on ground of delay in trial. No doubt that accused has right of speedy trial but considering lack of infrastructure and also pendency of backlog of cases, sometimes it is not possible to dispose of the case on priority basis. Herein this case, almost all material witnesses were examined by prosecution. The petitioner is main accused and he has been named by PW-1, PW-11 and PW-13 as the person who made deadly assault upon deceased. As per impugned order dated 20.02.2025, 6 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner wherein charge-sheet has been filed against him. Three FIRs were further referred and in 2 FIRs, present petitioner is named for violation of prison norms.

¶43

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence

(7 of 7)

[2025:RJ-JP:35746]

[CRLMB-3220/2025]

collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

¶48

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶49

Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Ravindra @ Kalu S/o Rishpal Singh is hereby dismissed.

¶50

The trial court is directed to expedite the trial of sessions case.

¶51

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶52

PREETI VALECHA /59

Ravindra @ Kalu S/O Rishpal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra @ Kalu S/O Rishpal Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Son of Chhajuram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Varish S/O Attu Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh Son of Bhola Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Anoop Sain S/O Late Shri Rameshchand Sain Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kumar S/O Shri Mamchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Satish S/O Mansingh Vs State of Rajasthan