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.

8. Deceased – Kuldeep Singh was supporting Smt. Deepika and Ms. Krishna in their actions against the petitioner and the other co- accused persons. Learned counsel submitted that it would be unjust to conclude/presume that merely because the deceased Kuldeep Singh was supporting Smt. Deepika and Ms. Krishna (being their close relative), in lowering down the reputation of the petitioner and the other co-accused persons, the petitioner hatched the conspiracy to murder the deceased – Kuldeep Singh.

9. To substantiate this contention, learned counsel submitted that Smt. Deepika lodged an FIR No.160/2022 dated 05.12.2022 against the petitioner and the co-accused persons namely Bhawani Singh and Suresh Singh for the offences under Section 365, 366, 376, 344, 328, 313, 323/34, 506 IPC. However, the Police after making a thorough investigation in the matter (in connection with the FIR lodged by Smt Deepika), did not find the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the co-accused persons to be correct and therefore, on 28.12.2022 submitted a negative final report before competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that once the allegations levelled against the petitioner by Smt. Deepika were not found to be proved by the police authorities while making investigation in the FIR No. 160/2022, the petitioner had no reason to have enmity or to conspire/plan the killing of the deceased - Kuldeep Singh.

10. Lastly, learned counsel further submitted that since a close scrutiny of the challan papers and the documents annexed thereto does not indicate presence of any incriminating material on record, showing involvement of the petitioner with the commission of the alleged offences; since the prosecution has prima facie utterly failed to complete the chain of circumstances linking the petitioner with the offences; and since the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of the bail should be granted to the present petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that sufficient evidence for motive of the petitioner to commit the alleged crime is available on record of the case. Learned counsel submitted that the investigating agency during the course of investigation has gathered enough material to indicate that the petitioner conspired with co-accused persons in order to kill the deceased- Kuldeep Singh.

11. Learned counsel submitted that during the course of investigation it has been revealed that the co-accused Bhawani Singh eloped with Smt. Deepika (daughter of complainant- Sardul Singh) and solemnized marriage with her. Smt. Deepika started living with co-accused Bhawani Singh at Ahmedabad. Smt. Deepika and her sister-in-law Ms. Krishna got to know that the co- accused Bhawani Singh and his uncle i.e. the present petitioner were running a sex racket. They also found one pen drive, bringing to light the illicit/illegal activities of the petitioner and the co-accused person. Smt. Deepika thereupon without informing her husband i.e. co-accused Bhawani Singh came back to her maternal home situated in Roopawas along with her sister-in-law (Ms. Krishna). Deceased Kuldeep Singh who is the cousin of Smt. Deepika supported her and Ms. Krishna in lodging FIR No.160/2022 at P.S. Shivpura against the petitioner and the co- accused persons. Deceased- Kuldeep Singh released a no. of statements through audio/video mode on social media platforms against the co-accused persons exposing their role in illicit/illegal activities.

12. Learned counsel submitted that though it is true that in the FIR No.160/2022 lodged at P.S. Shivpura, a negative final report was submitted before the competent criminal court by the investigating agency but the accused persons wanted to teach Smt. Deepika a lesson and therefore, they started threatening her, deceased – Kuldeep Singh and their other family members. In these circumstances, Smt. Deepika was left with no option but to file an Istgasa (complainant) No.67/2022 under Section 107-116 Cr.P.C. at P.S. Shivpura, District Pali. The statements of the deceased - Kuldeep Singh were recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C in connection with the Istgasa (complainant) No.67/2022. Learned counsel submitted that the facts of the case speak volumes about the presence of motive in the present case for the petitioner to commit crime as he was badly hurt by the actions of petitioner which tainted his reputation and image in the society at large.

13. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers indicating call details and call locations of the petitioner and co- accused persons obtained by the investigating agency, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner in order to conceal his role in the present case was using three different mobile numbers viz. 9974134202, 8120143143 and 9725902590. The petitioner was keeping contact with the co-accused persons through whatsapp as well. Learned counsel submitted that it is apparent from the record of the case, charge-sheet and by the documents annexed thereto, that the accused-petitioner Nathu Singh by using the mobile number 9974134202 had made calls to the following co- accused persons:

The mobile Nos. 8120143143, 9725902590 were found to be in use by the present petitioner for SMS or net usage only and no calls were found to be made by these numbers to remain in contact with the other co-accused.

14. Learned counsel submitted that the call location analysis of the petitioner’s mobile phone No.9974134202 indicates that in the intervening night of 22.12.2022 to 23.12.2022, the petitioner was using his mobile from Dhenawas, Dhakri. The petitioner was in contact with co-accused Bhupendra Deora (mobile phone No.8209543193) through his mobile phone between 09:30PM. to 10:30 PM. Further, the call locations of Co-accused Bhupendra Deora and other co-accused persons namely, Dhanna Ram Mali, Suresh Singh, Bhawani Singh and Laddu Singh @ Lakhan Pratap Singh has been found at one place viz. Dhakri Dhenwas. Learned counsel submitted that it cannot be a mere coincidence that all the accused persons, would be using their mobile phones at one time from same location. Learned counsel submitted that these facts are sufficient to establish active role of the petitioner in hatching the conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased Kuldeep Singh. Apart from this, on 15.01.2023 as well i.e. on the date of alleged murder, the petitioner was in contact with the other co-accused in the late hours indicating his involvement in the present case. It was urged that the co-accused Bhupendra Singh, Ladu Singh @ Lakhan Pratap, Dhanna Ram, Ramnivas, Bhawani Singh, Jagdish Ram, Dinesh Bhati, Babu Khan, Shiv Singh, Teja Ram and Shaitan Singh were directly involved in committing murder of the deceased and recoveries of weapons, vehicles/mobile phones which were allegedly used in commission of crime, have also been made at the instance of these accused persons.

15. Learned counsel thus prayed that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail.

16. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

17. Having considered the rival submissions and from the perusal of the challan papers, statements of various witnesses including Smt. Deepika and Ms. Krishna recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, this Court prima facie finds that sufficient evidence of motive for petitioner to commit crime is available on record. This Court also prima facie finds that the mobile phone location/call detail analysis annexed with the charge-sheet indicates that the petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused persons at the time when the conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased - Kuldeep Singh. In the opinion of this Court, in a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and it plays a vital link to complete the chain of circumstances. In the present case, the fact that the petitioner held grudges against the deceased coupled with the fact that he was constantly in touch with the other co-accused persons, clearly establish the logical link between the acts of the present petitioner and the desired result of the death of the deceased – Kuldeep Singh. Motive which itself is a relevant fact in the present case and looking to the nature of evidence gathered by the investigating agency against the present petitioner, the complicity of the accused-petitioner cannot be ruled out by this Court at this stage.

18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, and looking to the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner; nature and gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. Consequently, the application for bail is dismissed as such.

19. It is however, made clear that the findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purpose of adjudication of the present bail applications. The trial Court shall not get prejudiced by the same.