HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1415/2025 Mahaveer Singh Sarwadi S/o Pritvi Singh, Aged About 85 Years, R/o D- 102 Meera Marg Banipark Jaipur (On Bail)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Mr Shambhu Singh Shekhawat Sub Inspector Police Station Malasar, District Nagaur

3. Central Bureau Of Investigation, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Nahta Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladrecha for CBI Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

03/02/2026 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jodhpur Metropolitan, whereby charges against the petitioner under Sections 109, 147 read with 109, 148 read with 109, 307 read with 109, 325 read with 109, 326 read with 109, 354 read with 109, 332 read with 109, 353 read with 109, 435 read with 109, 283 read with 109, 342 read with 109, 397 read with 109 IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of the Public Property (Prevention of Destruction) Act have been framed.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is aged about 85 years. He further submits that the principal allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other persons, delivered a provocative speech, which turned violent and subsequently led to rioting by the crowd . It is contended that upon a perusal of the entire charge-sheet as well as the material collected during investigation, there is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that the petitioner delivered any such provocative speech.

It is further submitted that there is neither any transcript of any speech allegedly delivered by the petitioner nor does the transcript placed on record by the C.B.I. contain the petitioner’s name. On the contrary, document D-42 refers to the names of about ten other persons; however, the petitioner’s name does not find mention therein. The names of Mahaveer Singh Chhapri and Mahaveer Singh Jilawat do find place in the said document, yet both have been left out by the investigating agency, while the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that there is no material on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged incident and, in the absence thereof, no charges under the alleged offences could have been framed against him.

It is also submitted that although the order framing charges dated 09.10.2025 alleges that the petitioner delivered a provocative speech, no charge under Section 153 IPC has been framed. In the absence of the said foundational offence, the remaining charges could not have been framed. Learned counsel submits that all other charges have been framed solely with the aid of Section 109 IPC and, in the absence of any principal offender or proof of instigation, the same cannot be sustained. It is further contended that there is no nexus between the alleged speech and the subsequent acts of the crowd. In the absence of any speech, it cannot be alleged that the petitioner instigated the commission of offences under Sections 325, 326, 354, 332 or 353 IPC.

Learned counsel submits that all these contentions were raised before the learned Trial Court at the stage of arguments on charge; however, the Trial Court failed to consider the same and proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner along with the other accused. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Saju v. State of Kerala reported in (2001) 1 SCC 178, Ranganayaki v. State reported in (2004) 12 SCC 521, Prahlad Sharma vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1675 of 2009) and State of orissa vs Debendra Nath padhi reported in (2005) 1 SCC

568 Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. However, he has