Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49467 (RAJ)

CHARAN SINGH @ BABLU S/O SHRI RAM @ GHANTA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/13241/2025 · 2025-11-13

Ashok Kumar Jain

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:45899] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13241/2025 Charan Singh @ Bablu S/o Shri Ram @ Ghanta, Aged About 22 Years, R/o House No. 10 Ward No. 05, Mastabad, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brijendra Singh Kachhawa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 13/11/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Charan Singh @ Bablu S/o Shri Ram @ Ghanta seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.241/2025 registered at P.S. Udyog Nagar, Dist. Alwar for the offence under Sections 309(4) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. [2025:RJ-JP:45899] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13241/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application of petitioner was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 13.08.2025, but thereafter charge sheet has been filed. He further submits that co-accused Rohitash was already granted bail by this Court on 13.08.2025. He also submits that except the criminal antecedent, there is nothing on record to show that present petitioner has a distinct case than Rohitash. He further referred the grounds raised by him while arguing the first bail application and submitted that the petitioner is in custody since his arrest and the offence is triable by Magistrate First Class. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On basis of report against unknown three persons who committed robbery with Soyab Khan by snatching his beg containing ₹2.50 Lac, a report is registered. During investigation accused Mohammad Kaif and Rohitash were arrested on 07.07.2025 whereas Wasim Akram @ Wasim Khan and Charan Singh were arrested on 09.07.2025. Thereafter, test identification parade was conducted by Tehsildar, Alwar. During investigation, role and involvement of these persons were found along with accused Ramveer who was arrested on 05.07.2025 and his test identification [2025:RJ-JP:45899] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13241/2025] parade was conducted. The police has found that offence under Section 310(2) of BNS is made out. 7. The police has filed charge sheet against Charan Singh, Vasim Akram, Mohammad Kaif, Rohitash and Ramveer. This Court has granted bail to accused Rohitash on 13.08.2025. The criminal antecedent submitted by police indicates that 10 criminal cases were registered against the present petitioner who was arrested by the police on 09.07.2025 and after test identification period, a charge sheet has been filed. The petitioner is a habitual criminal and criminal antecedents indicate his regular involvement in criminal cases. 8. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Charan Singh @ Bablu S/o Shri Ram @ Ghanta is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /77