IMPORTANT POINT
The significance of motive in completing the chain of circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence.

ORDER :

1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.43/2023 registered at Police Station Sojat City, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 365, 427& 302/120-B IPC.

2. As per prosecution one Sardul Singh submitted a written report dated 16.01.2023 to the Police alleging inter alia that on 15.01.2023, at around 09:20 PM, when his nephew namely Kuldeep Singh reached near the house of Ex- Minister Shri Laxmi Narayan Dave in his car bearing registration No. RJ-22-CC-5999, about 10-12 persons came in two vehicles (Maruti Swift Car and Scorpio) and hit the car of Kuldeep Singh with an intention to kill him. The car of Kuldeep Singh on being hit collided with an electricity pole and got severely damaged. Thereupon, the accused party attacked him armed with iron rods and pipes attacked him. The accused party thereafter kidnapped him and fled from the scene towards the Mod Bhata. In the written report, the complainant raised an apprehension that his nephew- Kuldeep Singh has been kidnapped by the accused persons owing to previous enmity with Suresh Singh, Nathu Singh and Bhawani Singh.

3. The Police Party on receiving the aforestated written report, immediately launched an intensive search for Kuldeep Singh. During search, the Police came to know that the accused party had killed him and the dead body of the deceased- Kuldeep Singh was found lying near the Nimbol factory.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was submitted that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel vehemently submitted that since the case hinges on circumstantial evidence only, the prosecution is required to prima facie prove the complete chain of incriminating circumstances linking the petitioner with the alleged crime.

5. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, owing to some previous animosity between the parties, a conspiracy of killing the deceased was hatched by the accused persons in one hotel Royal Plaza. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of an employee of the hotel (receptionist), recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. it was contended that he has only named co-accused Suresh Singh as his guest who had booked three rooms in the night of 23.12.2022. Learned counsel submitted that Chella Ram in his statements has neither named the petitioner nor linked the petitioner with the other co-accused persons in any manner.

6. Learned counsel submitted that even the call location of mobile phone No.9974134202 allegedly used by the petitioner does not indicate/establish the presence of the petitioner on 23.12.2022 and 24.12.2022 in the area where the hotel Royal Plaza is situated. It was further contended that even otherwise, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner hails from the same village or from the nearby villages from where the other co-accused persons belong and, therefore, on a few occasions, he had made calls to the co-accused persons who are known to him from before. It thus cannot be presumed that the petitioner had played any active role in commission of the alleged crime.

7. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner was running a sex racket at Ahemedabad. When this fact came to the knowledge of Smt. Deepika (daughter of the complainant – Sardul Singh) and her sister-in-law Ms. Krishna, they were maltreated by the accused Bhawani Singh, Nathu Singh and Suresh Singh and thus they ran away from Ahmedabad and came to the house of the complainant. Smt. Deepika and Ms. Krishna after reaching Roopawas released certain videos exposing the fact of petitioner being involved in a sex racket in complice with other co-accused persons Bhawani Singh and Suresh Singh.