Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9305 (RAJ)

YOGENDRA SINGH S/O BHOOPSINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/3167/2025 · 2025-04-01

Narendra Singh Dhaddha

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3167/2025 Yogendra Singh S/o Bhoopsingh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dayawali, P.s. Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan ( At Present In Central Jail Sevar, Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 01/04/2025 1. The present 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.156/2022 Registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143 & 302 IPC (later on offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120-B IPC and Section 9/25 of Arms Act were found to have been made out). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 19.04.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. No specific averment has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR. Similarly situated co-accused Kamlesh and Bhoop Singh have been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 29.09.2022 in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application Nos.14206/2022 and 14207/2022. (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3167/2025] Co-accused Avshek, who was juvenile, was also acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Dy.G.A. has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner and other co-accused had fired on the deceased- Pradeep and he died due to gun shot injuries. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the 2nd bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy.G.A.. 5. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and other co-accused had fired on the deceased-Pradeep and he died due to gun shot injuries. So, looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegation, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Consequently, this Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application is dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/12