ISHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No. 119/2020, Police Station Falana (Pali), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302/115 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner through video conferencing stated that the incident took place on 20.08.2020 and the accused-petitioner was arrested on 25.08.2020; that the name of the accused-petitioner was not mentioned in the First Information Report (FIR); that the accused-petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence; that only on the basis of Call Detail Report and Whatsapp Chat, the accused-petitioner was wrongly implicated in this case. He further stated that the main accused Bharat Vaishnav and the deceased Kan Singh were doing the property business and they purchased land jointly and also involved in other constructions works and Bharat's wife, namely, Rinku, regularly came at Falana and during that period, due to some closeness, relations were developed between deceased Kan Singh and wife of Bharat Vaishnav; that as per the statement of Madan Singh-brother of the deceased Kan Singh, when deceased Kan Singh and Pradeep Singh were sitting at Shivam Tea Stall, two persons came on motorcycle and both the persons were having pistols in their hands, they opened fire on Kan Singh and in that incident, Kan Singh was ultimately died. He further stated that as per statement of Vijendra Singh, Pratap Singh and other witnesses, the accused-petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence because, no-one identified these two persons and no identification parade was conducted; that on the basis of interrogation note of main accused Bharat Vaishnav, call detail report as well as whatsapp chat, the present accused-petitioner was wrongly implicated in this case of murder. He further stated that as per statement of Kaplesh and main accused Bharat Vaishnav, Madan Singh having doubt upon Arvind Karan Singh, Ankita Sargara and Narendra Singh Rajpurohit; that there is no specific allegation against the accused-petitioner; that the charge sheet has already been filed; and that further trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the present accusedpetitioner.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, present-in-person as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant through video conferencing have seriously opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant stated that the firing was made by Arvind Karan Singh and chatting took place between Arvind Karan Singh and the petitioner Ishwar Singh is available at page number 72 of the charge-sheet. He further stated that during the course of investigation, Police collected whatsapp chats, which is mentioned at page number 68 of the documents filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner and other whatsapp chats are available at page number 68, 69 and 70 of the charge sheet. He also stated that as per page number 2 of the charge-sheet, the accused-petitioner was involved in the conspiracy of murder along with the accused Arvind Karan Singh & Bharat Vaishnav, Ankita Sargara and Narendra Singh Rajpurohit. With these arguments, learned counsel stated that the benefit of bail should not be granted to the accused-petitioner.