Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sagarmal Son Of Teja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:2349]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3152/2024
1. Sagarmal Son Of Teja Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Dhani Nayakuwan Bhagega Police Station
Neem Aka Thana Dist Sikar
2. Rajendra @ Mukesh Son Of Rohitashav, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of Dhani Samota Wali Panchayat Sirohi
Neem Ka Thana Thana Kotwali Distt. Sikar
3. Mukesh Son Of Tejpal, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of
Nayabas Kundali Thana Bansur Distt. Alwar
4. Narendra Son Of Richpal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
Of Matwa Ki Dhnai, Bay Thana Nawalgarh Distt.
Jhunjhunu
5. Ankit @ Sagar Son Of Gajraj, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Gopi Thana Sihaniya Distt. Murena Madhya
Pradesh
6. Mohan Singh @ Katappa Son Of Bhagwan Singh, Aged
About 22 Years, Resident Of Kidwana Thana Surajgarh,
Distt. Jhunjhunu
----Appellants
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pintu Meena S/o Sh. Pappu Lal Meena, R/o Village Arniya
Kankad Peeplu Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 3153/2024
1. Suresh Kumar Son Of Girdhari Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Dhani Baniyala Village Panchayat Mahawa Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar Distt Sikar (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)
2. Ravindra Singh @ Pappu Son Of Amar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Nayasar, Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu Dist. Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)
3. Satveer Singh Son Of Kishore Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Bhadwasi Deepmala, Johda Police (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (2 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] Station Dadiya Distt. Sikar (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)
4. Rakesh Kumar @ Shera Son Of Kamal Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Dhani Nawedi Panchayat Dehara Johadi Police Station Neem Ka Thana, Sadar Diss Sikar (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)
5. Mahendra Singh Son Of Om Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Turkiyawas, Police Station Jobner, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan) (Appellants Are Confined At District Jail Tonk)
----Appellants Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Pintu Meena S/o Sh. Pappu Lal Meena, R/o Arniya Kankad Peeplu Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat Mr. David Mehla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. BN Sandu Mr. Rajendra Prasad Yadav Ms. Anisha Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on: 16/01/2025 Pronounced on: 22/01/2025
1. The instant criminal appeals are filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act of 1989") on behalf of the appellants, who are in custody in relation to FIR No.168/2023 registered at Police Station Peeplu, District Tonk for the offence (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (3 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] under Sections 143, 302, 201 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v)(VA) of the Act of 1989).
2. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that as per the records, it can be noted that the alleged incident occurred on 27th June, 2023 and an FIR against the was lodged belatedly on 30th June, 2023 by brother of the deceased, stating that a group of persons who were employees of sand smugglers, have attacked and caused brutal injuries upon the deceased.
3. Learned counsel had further submitted that it is revealed from the medical report that as many as 14 injuries were sustained by the deceased, out of which, 11 were simple in nature and one was fatal/grievous/life threatening in nature. It is further averred that at present, qua certain alleged persons, proceedings under the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are initiated and qua some of the accused-persons charge sheet is not filed and investigation is ongoing, as per the factual report.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants had prayed that the present appeals may be allowed whislt enlarging the appellants on bail, on the ground that the Apex Court has granted the benefit of bail vide order dated 21st October, 2024 passed in Abhishek & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.11876/2024.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants had urged and pleaded the Court to follow the principle of parity and contended as follows:
5.1 That FIR was made to be registered after two days of the alleged incident.
(Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (4 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] 5.2 That no specific role is assigned to the appellants nor any allegations are made directly against the appellants. 5.3 That all the appellants are the sole bread-earners of their families and are aged in between 20 and 40 years.
6. It was further submitted that there are zilch criminal antecedents registered against the appellants except a few of the appellants namely Rakesh Kumar, Sagar Mal and Ankit.
7. Consecutively, it was submitted that being aggrieved by the dismissal of the bail application, the co-accused appellants preferred a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court registered as Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.15963/2023, and SLP (Cr.) No. 16030/2023 which were dismissed vide order dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure - 4). Nonetheless, the same is not applicable to the present facts of the application, as the same was dismissed after filing of charge sheet.
8. Subsequently, it was submitted that statement of PW - 3 - Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Medical Officer) had not supported the story of the prosecution and depicts that the cause of death was not the injuries sustained by the deceased.
9. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel for the appellant had placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2009 (2) ACR 1232 (SC) and Khet Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan registered as SB Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application no.861/2021;
10. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid ratio, it was contended that if one of the co-accused is granted the benefit of (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (5 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] bail then the other co-accused are also entitled for the benefit of bail, as per the principle of parity. Moreover, the tenure of custody shall also be a relevant ground for consideration of the bail application.
11. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, have vehemently opposed the instant appeal and have made manifold submissions, inter alia others a few of which are noted herein below:
11.1 That precisely it is noted in the said FIR that resultant to the brutal injuries inflicted by the group of 'bajri mafias', the death of a young man occurred. The deceased belonged to an underprivileged community (SC/ST Category) and was the sole-
earner for the dependents.
11.2 That delay in lodging the said FIR was due to the fact that the appellants are highly affluent and the said FIR was only made to be registered upon intervention of MLAs/political leaders and the protest made by the general public. 11.3 That a brutal murder was executed on account of the malice intentions of the accused-appellants wherein as many as 14 injuries of serious and simple nature were inflicted upon the deceased, with intention of committing murder. The said fact is also substantiated by the Medical Report. 11.4 That Dr. Rajesh Kumar (Medical Officer) (PW - 3) is only one of the members of the Medical Board and the Medical Report itself has not ruled out the injuries causing vomit and hindrance/blockage in/of the esophagus. (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (6 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] 11.5 That the investigation is moving at a steady pace and the proceedings under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are initiated for justified reasons.
12. That the ratio of Abhishek & Anr. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable in the prevailing facts and circumstances, for the reasons stated herein below:-
12.1 That the principle of parity and judicial discipline, was also not considered/granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of co-accused Rakesh Kumar (supra) (Annexure - 4). 12.2 The criminal antecedents, qua the appellants, were not brought on record and hence were not considered. 12.3 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the order passed by the High Court, was passed in appeal, whereas at Page - 53 (Annexure-5), reflects that orders were passed while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 Cr.P.C. after a detailed reason and not under the bail proceedings.
13. It was further contended that there is an ongoing threat by the persons against whom investigation is pending under the provisions of Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and all the appellants belong to Jhujhunu, Alwar and Shekhawati belt whereas the incident took place in Malpura District.
14. Lastly, it was argued that criminal antecedents of heinous offences/nature are reflected against the accused/co-
accused namely Sagarmal, Ankit, Mohan Singh and Rakesh Kumar moreover, the other appellants are in acquaintance with them. Nevertheless, the accused persons noted herein are engaged in (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (7 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] illegal activities/ actions of siphoning of sand/Bajri; are acting as sand mafias and are a threat to the safety of the deceased's family/complainant. Upon enlarging the appellants on bail, there will be a plausibility of tampering with evidences and threatening of witnesses and complainant. Nevertheless, considering the socio-economical background of the complainant and the deceased this Court has a duty to safeguard their rights and protect their lives from all means of danger.
13. Heard and considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, scanned through the voluminous record furnished before the Court and perused through the judgments cited at the Bar.
14. At the outset, prior to penning down the observations on the contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties this Court deems it absolutely essential to take note of the most germane facts of consideration for adjudication of a bail appeal/application. It is settled position of law that for efficacious adjudication of any bail application/appeal a Court has to consider material factors like the history/ record of criminal antecedents registered against the accused-appellant, age, sex, character, conduct, role in the alleged offence, impact on the society, nature and gravity of charges, severity of punishment on being convicted, likelihood of offence being rehearsed etc.
15. Therefore, upon a cumulative analysis of the aforementioned factors this Court is of a primary view that a number of criminal antecedents are registered against the accused appellants, which create a prima facie impediment for this Court to formulate a clear opinion qua the history and character of the (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (8 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] appellants. For the sake of convenience and handiness, the records of criminal antecedents registered against the appellants is reproduced herein below:
01- Jh lkxj ey rSrjoky iq= Jh rstkjke rSrjoky tkfr tkV mez 29 o'kZ fuoklh <k.kh u;kdqvka Hkxsxk Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk lnj ftyk lhdj dzz-la ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1- 2 3 4 5 414@22 147]149]323]341]4 lnj Vksad pktZ"khV 296@12 1 4-12-2022 27 fnukad 30-12-22 Hkknl-
2- 230@19 379 Hkknl- Ekakxfy;kokl pktZ"khV 219@22 13-11-19 ¼vtesj½ fnukad 12-12-22 3- 227@20 147]148]149]323]3 uhe dk Fkkuk lnj pktZ"khV 153@20 06-07-20 07 ¼lhdj½ fnukad 09-09-20 Hkknl-
02-Jh lqjs"k dqekj xqtZj iq= Jh fxj/kkjh yky xqtZj tkfr xqtZj mez 33 o'kZ fuoklh <k.kh ckfu;kyk xzke iapk;r egkok Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk lnj ftyk lhdj dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 03- Jh jkds"k dqekj cksj[k mQZ "kSjk iq= Jh dey dqekj cksj[k tkfr tkV mez 32 o'kZ fuoklh <k.kh uksoMh xzk-ia- Msgjk tksgMh Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk lnj ftyk lhdj dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1- 146@18 143]341]323]427]382 [k.Msyk ¼lhdj½ pktZ"khV 78@18 29-05-18 Hkknl- fnukad 12-06-18 2- 18@18 279]337]338 Hkknl uhe dk Fkkuk lnj pktZ"khV 6@18 08-01-18 ¼lhdj½ fnukad 31-01-18 04- Jh egsUnz flag iq= Jh vkseflag tkfr jktiwr mez 28 o'kZ fuoklh rqfdZ;kokl Fkkuk tkscusj ftyk t;iqj dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 05- Jh lrohj flag iq= Jh fd"kksj flag "ks[kkor tkfr jktiwr mez 23 fuoklh Hkknoklh Fkkuk nkfn;k ftyk lhdj (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (9 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 06- Jh jktsUnz tk[kM mQZ eqds"k iq= Jh jksfgrk"k tk[kM tkfr tkV mez 31 o'kZ fuoklh <k.kh lkeksrk okyh xzke iapk;r fljksgh Fkkuk uhe dk Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk lhdj dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 07- Jh eqds"k flag iq= Jh rstiky flag tkfr jktiwr mez 20 o'kZ fuoklh u;kckl dq.Myh Fkkuk ckulwj ftyk vyoj dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 08- Jh ujsUnz dqekj iq= Jh fjNiky flag tkfr tkV mez 24 o'kZ fuoklh ekrok dh <k.kh ck; Fkkuk uoyx< ftyk >qU>quw dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 09- Jh jfoUnz flag mQZ iIiw iq= Jh vej flag tkfr jktiwr mez 37 o'kZ fuoklh okMZ uEcj 07 u;klj Fkkuk lnj >qU>quw dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 fuy fuy fuy fuy 10- Jh vafdr mQZ lkxj iq= Jh xtjkt flag tkfr rksej ¼jktiwr½ mez 21 o'kZ fuoklh Hkksih Fkkuk flgksfu;k ftyk eqjSuk ¼e0iz0½ dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 29@20 307]323]294]34 - pktZ"khV 42@20 Hkknl o 25, 27] fnukad 06-06-20 vkElZ ,DV 11- Jh eksguflag mQZ dVIik mQZ ckck Bkdqj iq= Jh Hkxoku flag tkfr jktiwr mez 21 lky fuoklh xzke fd<okuk iqfyl Fkkuk lwjtx<+ ftyk >qU>quw (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:2349] (10 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] dz la- ,QvkbZvkj ua- vUrxZr /kkjk lacfU/kr Fkkuk iqfyl urhtk 1 2 3 4 5 1 24@23 394]34 Hkknl lqtkux< ¼pq:½ pktZ"khV 49@23 11-01-23 fnukad 12-04-23
16. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case; submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties; keeping in view the nature of offence, evidences, complicity of accused, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case this Court is of the view that the appellants have failed to make out a case for bail, for the reasons noted herein below:
16.1 That the contents of the FIR reflects involvement of the appellants in the said offence.
16.2 That the nature of injuries inflicted were 14 in number and were of simple and grievous in nature, which resulted in death of the victim. Thence, from the number of injuries it can be deduced that the same were made in a sequence to cause death of the victim.
16.3 That the appeal preferred by one of the co-accused (Rakesh Kumar) is dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and the appellants herein are on same pedestal with that of the judgment debtor in the judgment dated 14.12.2023. 16.4 That as per the opinion noted in the judgment dated 21.10.2024 passed in Abhishek & Anr. (supra) wherein it is categorically noted that the same was passed in absence of consideration of the criminal antecedents. Nevertheless, in the instant case out of eleven appellants, four appellants have strong criminal antecedents registered against themselves. (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:2349] (11 of 11) [CRLAS-3152/2024] 16.5 That considering the aforementioned, it can be noted that there is a plausibility that if the appellants are enlarged on bail, they might tamper with the evidences and threaten the witnesses or the family of the complainant/victim. 16.6 That as per the constitutional guarantees, this Court is bound to safeguard the rights and protect the life and dignity of the socially and economically underprivileged community and it is undisputed fact that the victim/complainant herein belong to the SC/ST Community. Moreover, a judicial balance must be struck between the competing forces in a criminal trail i.e. the interests of the accused and the public security, at the same time not loosing the sight of public interest involved in the prosecution of persons who commit offences. Nevertheless, in the matter in hand the trial qua the accused-appellants is at a steady pace.
17. In light of the above, the instant bail appeals are dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa (Downloaded on 22/01/2025 at 10:17:58 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)