Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 7951
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J
AMIR KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 137 / 2025
Mr. Mudit Nagpal, Mr. Deepak Pareek for Mr. J.S. Bhaleria, Mr. Sunil Chhaba, Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Public Prosecutor
Bail applications were denied due to the gravity of the offences and evidence indicating involvement, emphasizing that bail is discretionary and contingent on the case's merits.
Headnote:(A) BNS Act, 2023 - Sections 308(4), 109(1), 111(2)(a), 61(2)(a) - Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 3/25, 5/25 & 27 - Bail applications filed by petitioners arrested for serious offences including threats and attempted murder - Petitioners claimed false implication and long judicial custody - Court found evidence of involvement including CCTV footage and recovered items - (Paras 1-5)
(B) Bail - Grant of bail is discretionary and depends on the gravity of the offence and evidence available - At this stage, the court cannot determine the merits of the case without witness examination - (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were arrested in connection with a case involving threats and an attempted shooting against a complainant who reported extortion demands. The petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and had been in custody for an extended period.
Findings of Court:
The court noted the gravity of the allegations, including the use of firearms and threats to life, and the presence of the petitioners at the crime scene as per CCTV footage.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were falsely implicated and the appropriateness of granting bail given the severity of the charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence presented, including CCTV footage and recovered items, indicated potential involvement in the crime, and that bail could not be granted without further witness examination.
Result: Bail applications rejected.
Order
23/04/2025
These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.543/2024, registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, District – Sri Ganganganagar, for offences under Sections 308(4), 109(1), 111(2)(a), 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25, 5/25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Shokat Ali has given a written report before the SHO, P.S. Jawahar Nagar to the effect that he is a contractor of garden of Kinnu (fruit). On 24.05.2024 he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile phone from WhatsApp No. +1(604)902-6574 and the caller has threatened him and demanded a bribe of Rs.1 crore and cut the call. Thereafter he received another WhatsApp call from WhatsApp No. +1(778)9330317, threatening him to give the bribe amount otherwise he or his family member will be killed. On 25.05.2024 a WhatsApp call from WhatsApp No.+1(778)9330317 was made, which he did not receive then a WhatsApp message demanding bribe by the evening and of threatening with dire consequence, was sent from that number, which message he received. On 13.09.2024 he went outside for his work then at around 1:40 pm his younger brother informed him on mobile phone that two persons came on motorcycle in the Gali (street) in front of his house who fired gun shot at the window of his house. When they checked the CCTV footage, they saw that two persons muffled face came on black coloured motorcycle and the person on the rear seat of the motorcycle fired at the house and thereafter they ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the accused-petitioners are not involved in the commission of the crime. They have been falsely implicated in the present case. They are not member of the gang which demanded bribe from the complainant. Only a helmet was recovered from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that three co-accused namely Arjun, Gagandeep and Jaswant have been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Applications No.13384/2024, 12859/2024 and 12860/2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the accused persons are in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that accused-petitioners have committed a heinous crime. The allegation of firing gun shot is at accused Nawab. One helmet which the accused Amir Khan was wearing at the time of the commission of offence has been recovered which was produced by Mandeep Singh, the owner of the motorcycle. Both the accused have been seen on the spot in the CCTV footage. Both the accused persons are the member of the gang of Laurance Vishnoi and accused Rohit Godara has instructed them to commit such crime. A pistol of .32 bore has been recovered at the instance of accused Nawab Khan. The offences alleged against the petitioners are against the society.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that on the co-accused Arjun, Gagandeep and Jaswant, there are allegations of recce of the house of the complainant and their role is different than that of the present accused persons.
Therefore, he prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioners.
From perusal of the seizure memo of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.RJ-13 CS 1500 and one black helmet, it is evident that the aforesaid motorcycle and helmet belonged to PW-1 – Mandeep Singh and the accused-petitioner Amir Khan took the said motorcycle and helmet on the pretext of getting
