Sheesh Ram S/O Banshi Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5634]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 601/2025

¶4

Sheesh Ram S/o Banshi Ram, R/o Village Sevkheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar).

¶5

Mahesh S/o Karan Singh, R/o Village Sevkheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar).

¶6

Netram S/o Banshi Ram, R/o Village Sevkheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar).

¶7

Maharam S/o Data Ram, R/o Village Sevkheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar).

¶8

Samay Singh S/o Ratiram, R/o Tihli, Police Station Tijara, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar).

¶9

----Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Adv.

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶15

Order

¶16

07/02/2025

¶17

The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused petitioners. The accused

[2025:RJ-JP:5634]

[CRLMB-601/2025]

(2 of 5)

petitioners have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.329/2024, registered at Police Station, Tijara, District Bhiwadi, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 & 307 IPC.

¶22

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the said F.I.R. It is vehemently argued that the names of all the petitioners are not mentioned in the first information report. It is also argued that there is a land dispute between the complainant party and the accused petitioners. The said land belongs to the petitioners, and the complainant party has attempted to dispossess the accused petitioners from the said land. The complainant party also lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioners’ party. Injuries sustained by Rajendra, Anita, Hansraj, Ramrati, Ajay, Saroj and Revti were found to be simply blunt or grievous. No injury was found to be dangerous to life. The injured witnesses have also not named the specific act of the present petitioners in their statements rendered before the Investigating Agency. No identification of the accused petitioners was conducted. Earlier, the complainant party also threatened the accused party. The petitioners are behind bars for a lengthy trial of the case, which may take considerable time. Therefore, the bail application of the accused petitioners may be allowed.

¶23

The learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.

¶24

It is contended that the injured Rajendra, Ajay, Hansraj, Anita, Saroj, and Revti, in their statement rendered under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., have categorically stated that petitioner No.1-

[2025:RJ-JP:5634]

[CRLMB-601/2025]

(3 of 5)

Sheesh Ram and petitioner No.2 Mahesh along with the other coaccused, came in a vehicle along with 20 to 25 persons and attempted to dispossess the complainant-party from the land which had in possession of the complainant-party since 1996. They were armed with weapons and caused injuries to Rajendra, Ajay, Hansraj, Anita, Saroj & Revti; as a result of the attack, Rajendra, Ajay, Hansraj, Saroj, Ramrati & Anita sustained several injuries, out of which two injuries of injured Rajendra, one injury of injured Hansraj, one injury of injured Ramrati and one injury of injured Anita were found to be grievous. Apart from that, they also received multiple injuries. It is also contended that apart from injured witnesses, there are other witnesses who, in their statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C., have clearly shown the presence of Netram and Maharam at the place of occurrence. It is also vehemently argued that the entire incident was captured in the video, and the Investigating Agency, after analysing the video, found the presence of Mahesh, Sheesh Ram and Maharam at the place of occurrence. The analysis report clearly shows that the accused petitioners, Sheesh Ram, Mahesh and Maharam, were present with arms at the place of occurrence. The video captured also indicates that all the indicted petitioners and the other coaccused were armed with weapons and were inflicting lathi blows on the injured. The presence of the accused petitioners, Sheesh Ram, Mahesh, Netram & Maharam, was also corroborated through their mobile location, and it also finds a place in the case diary and the factual report. It is also contended that the disputed land was never in possession of the complainant party. Before the present report, another report was lodged against the petitioners’

[2025:RJ-JP:5634]

[CRLMB-601/2025]

(4 of 5)

party, and that also finds a place in the statement of witnesses as well as in the F.I.R. of the present case. The petitioners, along with the other co-accused, after forming an unlawful assembly, attacked the complainant party and caused multiple injuries to all the injured; therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the present accused-petitioners deserves dismissal. 5. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. All the injured witnesses in their statements have categorically stated that petitioner No.1 Sheesh Ram and petitioner No.2 Mahesh were present with arms at the place of occurrence and inflicted various injuries along with other coaccused to the injured. The mobile footage and photographs captured from the mobile indicate the involvement of the present petitioners, and thus, video footage, the presence of accusedpetitioner No.4 Maharam, was also recorded along with petitioner No.2 Mahesh and petitioner No.1 Sheesh Ram. Therefore, the role of the petitioners Nos.1, 2 & 4 is apparent in the alleged incident, and their presence was found in the place of occurrence with arms.

¶33

As far as petitioner No.3-Netram and petitioner No.5-Samay Singh are concerned, none of the injured witnesses have stated their presence at the place of occurrence. In the video analysis report, their presence has not been shown; some of the witnesses who are not the injured witnesses in their statement have also not shown the presence of petitioner No.3-Netram. In the call analysis report, Netram was found near the periphery of the occurrence, and Netram has also contacted other co-accused. As far as

[2025:RJ-JP:5634]

[CRLMB-601/2025]

(5 of 5)

petitioner No.5-Samay Singh is concerned, his name does not find a place in the F.I.R. as well and in the statement of injured witnesses rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., there is no specific allegation in the F.I.R. as well as in the statement of injured witnesses, regarding Netram and Samay Singh, therefore, considering the above facts and taking into consideration that presence of petitioner No.1-Sheesh Ram, petitioner No.2-Mahesh and petitioner No.4-Maharam were found at the place of occurrence with their specific action, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to them. The bail application of the accused petitioner No.3 Netram and accused petitioner No.5-Samay Singh is allowed. 8. Accordingly, the bail application of the accused-petitioner No.1 Sheesh Ram, accused-petitioner No.2 Mahesh and accusedpetitioner No.4 Maharam under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed and the bail application of the accused-petitioner No.3 Netram and accused-petitioner No.5-Samay Singh under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed.

¶38

It is ordered that the accused-petitioner No.3 Netram son of Banshi Ram and accused-petitioner No.5 Samay Singh son of Rati Ram in connection with F.I.R. No.329/2024, registered at Police Station, Tijara, District Bhiwadi, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶39

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶40

Ramesh Vaishnav/86/215

Sheesh Ram S/O Banshi Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheesh Ram S/O Banshi Ram 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

Salim S/O Tahir Vs State of Rajasthan

Kumari Malti Ghanshyam Kalariya D/O Shri Ghanshyam Gokuldas Kalariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Nikhil Gurjar S/O Mukesh Gurjar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bajrang S/O Bharti Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aakiv S/O Jameel Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Gora S/O Shri Mohan Lal Gora Vs State of Rajasthan