Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pushpendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 May, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023/RJJD/013630]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2249/2023
Pushpendra Singh S/o Hem Singh Gaur/ravana Rajput, aged
about 24 Years, R/o Bhagat Ki Kothi, Shastri Nagar Police
Station, Jodhpur, at present R/o Plot No. 85, Sangaria Vihar, Kuri
Bhagtasni Police Station, District Jodhpur.
(Confined in Sub Jail, Gulabpura).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B. Ray Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, G.A.-cum-AAG assisted
with Mr. Pallav Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 08/05/2023 This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara for the offences punishable under Sections 201, 202, 212, 225, 120B read with Section 302, 307, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 IPC and under Section 3/25 read with Sections 35, 25[6], 28 of the Arms Act and under Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution story, the present petitioner, who was arrested by the investigating agency on 24.06.2021, in his information under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act, disclosed that co-accused persons, namely Raju Fauji, Pabu Ram Gorsiya, Yashwant Singh @ (Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) [2023/RJJD/013630] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-2249/2023] Bunty and Ramesh Bhaniya on 12.04.2021, met him at a house situated at Sangariya (Jodhpur), which was rented out to them by landlord Jagdish, on asking of the present petitioner.
The petitioner in the aforesaid disclosure statement further stated that above named co-accused persons informed him that while transporting huge quantity of contraband (poppy husk/straw) on 10-11.04.2021, they had an encounter with police personnel of PS Kotadi and Rayla, in which they fired gunshots at police personnel, leading to death of two police personnel. The present petitioner thereafter, on being asked by co-accused persons, hid the weapons viz., two automatic pistols, 95 live cartridges along with contraband-poppy husk/straw, account books and ATM cards etc. at his parental house.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor was he present with the co-acussed persons at the place of incident. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no knowledge or information about transportation of contraband on the date of incident and so also the killing of two police personnel.
Learned counsel vehemently submitted that merely on the allegation of his helping co-accused persons in getting the house on rent in Sangariya and that too much before the date of the incident would not connect him with the alleged incident which happened on 11.04.2021.
Learned counsel submitted that for the alleged incident which transpired on 10-11.04.2021, two FIRs were lodged, one F.I.R. bearing No.72/2021, was registered at PS Kotadi, Bhilwara (Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) [2023/RJJD/013630] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-2249/2023] for the offences punishable under Section 201, 202, 212, 225, 120B, 302, 307, 120, 467, 468, 471 and 440 IPC and Section 3/25, 35, 25 (6) and 28 Arms Act and another present FIR No.55/2021, was registered at PS Rayla, District Bhilwara for offences punishable under 201, 202, 212, 225, 120B read with 302, 307, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC, Section 35, 25(6), 28 Arms Act and under Section 8/29 NDPS Act.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that even if allegations levelled against petitioner are taken on face value then also, the charge against him will not travel beyond 201 and 202 IPC. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner has already been enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.72/2021 registered at PS Kotadi, Bhilwara for identical offences by this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2023 passed in S.B.Crl.Misc.2nd Bail Application No.495/2023. He thus, implored the court to accept the application for bail and enlarge the petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the nature of accusations and the severity of punishment which conviction will entail, the present bail application deserves to be rejected. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that co-ordinate Bench had enlarged the petitioner on bail in connection with FIR No.72/2021 registered at PS Kotadi, District Bhilwara, solely on the ground that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail. The merits of the application for bail were not adjudged independently, thus, no benefit on that count can be extended to the present petitioner.
(Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) [2023/RJJD/013630] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-2249/2023] The order dated 14.02.2023 passed by co-ordinate Bench in S.B.Crl.Misc.2ndBailApplicationNo.495/2023, enlarging the petitioner on bail is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"The present 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.72/2021, Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara for the offence punishable under Sections 201, 202, 212, 225, 120-B, 302, 307, 120, 467, 468, 471 & 440 of the IPC and under Sections 3/25, 35, 25[6] & 28 of the Arms Act.
The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on15.02.2022 by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that after dismissal of the first bail application of the petitioner, the co-accused Sandeep @ Sethi has been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.04.2022. Learned counsel further submits that the other similarly situated co-accused persons namely Ramdin, Mahesh Kumar Nidharwal, Sunil Ram Babal, Paras, Dinesh Kumar have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated
29.09.2021, 17.01.2022, 15.02.2022, 01.11.2022 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have already been released on bail by this Court. He also submits that the present petitioner was not present at the place of incident. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application but he is unable to distinguish the case of the present petitioner vis-a-vis the case of the co- accused persons who have been enlarged on bail. (Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) [2023/RJJD/013630] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-2249/2023] Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is also entitled for the grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Consequently, the 2nd bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Pushpendra Singh S/o Hem Singh arrested in connection with FIR No.72/2021, Police Station Kotadi, District Bhilwara, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees: Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so"
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
From the perusal of the FIR and challan papers, it is evident that the petitioner was not at all directly involved in the killing of two police personnel by the co-accused persons. Prima facie, there is no direct or indirect circumstance/evidence which would lead to the conclusion that the petitioner at any point of time, had any knowledge that co-accused persons will be transporting contraband and while trying to flee from the police personnel of PS Kotadi and Rayla, would end up killing two police personnel. Mere help in hiding the weapons cannot make the petitioner liable to the charge of conspiracy, especially when, he was more than two hundred kilometres away from the site of incident.
The argument put forth by learned Public Prosecutor that the co-ordinate Bench has enlarged petitioner on bail in connection (Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) [2023/RJJD/013630] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-2249/2023] with FIR No.72/2021, PS Kotadi, District Bhilwara, only on the ground that co-accused persons had been enlarged on bail does not hold water for the simple reason that the co-ordinate Bench in its order dated 14.02.2023, has clearly noted that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident.
Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Pushpendra Singh S/o Hem Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.55/2021 registered at Police Station Rayla, District Bhilwara shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J Ravi Khandelwal (Downloaded on 08/05/2023 at 10:45:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)