LAWS(RAJ)-2024-12-62

ASHISH SHEKHAWAT @ AKSHAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On December 20, 2024
Ashish Shekhawat @ Akshay Singh Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing the bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused- petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_62_LAWS(RAJ)12_2024_1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the bail application are that on 21/9/2021, complainant Sanjay Yadav lodged a report at the Bani Park, Police Station alleging therein that in the morning at about 10.45 a.m. his younger brother Ajay Yadav alongwith his friend Saurabh @ Chikul left home for office in a Scorpio car bearing registration number RJ-14-UE-2871 and about 01.15 p.m. when he was at Jai Ram's shop, Nafis Mistri came there and told him that he received a call from Bhagwan Choudhary, who informed him that an assault has been made upon his brother Ajay Yadav at Sootmill Colony, whereupon he rushed alongwith Nafis at the place of incident and saw that people were gathered there and he came to know that his brother and Saurabh were sitting in the Scorpio, 5-6 persons came there on Motorcycle and Scooter and fired gun shot on his brother, his brother tried to escape from the place but the assailants chased him and one of them again fired upon him resulting which he fell down and his head was struck with a stone by them. Both Ajay Yadav and Saurabh were shifted to SMS Hospital and subsequently Ajay was declared dead. Based on this, an FIR No. 132/2021 got registered at the Police Station Bani Park, under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 302, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused, including the informant, were arrested during the investigation and subsequently charged. Hence, the instant bail application.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. He submits that eye-witness account of the incident is not available on record. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.