Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jitendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:8468) on 12 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:8468]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 603/2026
Jitendra Singh S/o Drbar Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Kanwarasa, P.s. Sabhar, Dist. Jaipur Rural Through His Sister
Smt. Guddu Kanwar Shekhawat W/o Jitendra Tanwar 26 Years ,
R/o W.no 11 Hasampur Neemkathana, Sikar Raj. (Confined In
Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan,jaipur
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range , Ajmer
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara
5. The Investigating Officer, Ps Pur, Dist. Bhilwara
6. Sho, Ps Pur Dist. Bhilwara
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anushree Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
12/02/2026
1. The present criminal writ petition has been preferred under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India in relation to FIR
No.10/2026 dated 12.01.2026 registered at Police Station Pur,
District Bhilwara, for offences under Sections 3, 25 and 25(8) of
the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.01.2026, a
written report was submitted by the complainant alleging that
during routine patrolling, the police recovered one pistol along
with a magazine and cartridges from the possession of co-accused
Mahendra S/o Madan Raigar. Upon inquiry, the co-accused
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (2 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
allegedly stated that he had purchased the said firearm and
ammunition from the present petitioner. On the basis of the
written report and the said disclosure statement, the aforesaid FIR
came to be registered.
2.1. On 16.01.2026, the petitioner, who was already lodged in
Central Jail, Udaipur in connection with another matter, was shown
as an accused in the present case and was arrested pursuant to a
production warrant issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhilwara. The petitioner was thereafter remanded to police
custody vide orders dated 18.01.2026 and 20.01.2026. Hence the
instant Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely and mala fide implicated solely on the
basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, without any
independent recovery or legally admissible corroborative evidence
connecting him with the alleged offence.
3.1. It is asserted that no incriminating article was recovered
from the petitioner, nor is there any substantive material to justify
his implication in the present case. He further submitted that the
petitioner has been incarcerated since 2019 and was already
behind bars at the time of the alleged incident, thereby rendering
the prosecution story inherently doubtful. It is further contended
that the police custody remand granted on 18.01.2026 and
20.01.2026 lacked cogent justification and reflects arbitrary
exercise of investigative power. On these premises, the petitioner
seeks directions for fair and impartial investigation, transfer of the
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (3 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
investigation to an independent agency, and release from what is
alleged to be illegal detention.
4. Learned AGA has opposed the submissions advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the rival
submissions advanced at the Bar and have meticulously examined
the contents of the FIR as well as the material placed on record.
5.1. At the outset, it is manifest from the record that the
implication of the present petitioner emanates exclusively from
the disclosure statement of the co-accused, from whose
possession the alleged firearm and ammunition were recovered.
Admittedly, no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the
petitioner. The prosecution case, insofar as it concerns the
petitioner, rests singularly upon the statement allegedly made by
the co-accused during interrogation.
5.2. It is trite that a disclosure statement of a co-accused,
absence of discovery of a new thing or recovery pursuant thereto
or independent corroboration, at the best constitutes a fragile and
inherently circumscribed piece of material at the stage of
investigation. In the present case, no tangible incriminating article
has been recovered from the petitioner, nor has any independent
material been placed before this Court to prima facie establish a
live nexus between the petitioner and the alleged contraband
weapon.
5.3. The record further reveals that the petitioner was already
lodged in Central Jail, Udaipur, in connection with another case at
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (4 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
the time when he was shown as an accused in the present matter
and was subsequently arrested pursuant to a production warrant.
While incarceration in another case does not, ipso facto, grant
immunity from investigation in a distinct offence, the
circumstances in which the petitioner has been arraigned
necessitate heightened judicial scrutiny to ensure that the
investigative process does not transgress constitutional
safeguards.
5.4. This Court is conscious of the settled position that
investigation is the exclusive domain of the investigating agency
and ordinarily ought not to be interdicted in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. However, the constitutional mandate under Article 226
obligates this Court to intervene where the process of
investigation appears susceptible to arbitrariness, mala fides, or
manifest procedural impropriety.
5.5. The allegations raised by the petitioner, particularly with
regard to absence of recovery, lack of corroborative material, and
the manner in which police custody remand was sought and
granted, collectively warrant an assurance that the investigation
proceeds in a fair, transparent, and legally sustainable manner.
Fair investigation is not a matter of discretion but an inalienable
facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, and any investigative
exercise must conform to the touchstone of reasonableness,
objectivity, and procedural propriety.
6. Upon a meticulous perusal of the First Information Report,
this Court is satisfied that the allegations therein prima facie
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (5 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting
registration and thorough investigation in accordance with law.
The FIR, at this incipient stage, cannot be characterized as
inherently absurd, mala fide, or devoid of foundational facts so as
to justify judicial interdiction.
6.1. It is further borne out from the record that during custodial
interrogation, a co-accused is stated to have named the present
petitioner as an accomplice. Whether such disclosure ultimately
withstands evidentiary scrutiny is a matter to be adjudged at an
appropriate stage. However, the factum of such disclosure
undeniably furnishes a legitimate ground for the investigating
agency to subject the allegation to deeper probe. The mention of
the petitioner’s name in the course of investigation cannot, ipso
facto, be discarded as inconsequential or illusory so as to stifle
further inquiry.
6.2. The petitioner’s categorical assertion of innocence, namely,
that he bears no nexus with the alleged offence cannot, by itself,
constitute a valid ground for quashing the FIR at a stage when
investigation is ongoing. It is trite that the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and
only in cases where the allegations are patently frivolous,
manifestly attended with mala fides, or where continuation of
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The
present case does not, at this juncture, fall within such exceptional
contours.
6.3. The investigative process is a statutory prerogative entrusted
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (6 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
to the investigating agency. It is within their exclusive domain to
ascertain whether the disclosure statement of the principal
accused is credible or contrived, substantive or speculative. The
veracity, probative value, and corroborative worth of such
disclosure are matters that can only be unearthed through
systematic collection of evidence, examination of witnesses, and
evaluation of attendant circumstances.
6.4. This Court does not possess a forensic litmus test to pre-
emptively determine the truthfulness or falsity of the disclosures
made during investigation. Judicial intervention at this embryonic
stage would amount to trenching upon the investigative sphere
and prematurely foreclosing avenues of inquiry. The function of
the Court, at this threshold, is not to meticulously analyze the
evidentiary merits, but merely to ascertain whether the allegations
disclose a cognizable offence requiring investigation.
In these circumstances, the matter is eminently one that
necessitates comprehensive investigation. Interference at this
stage would neither be justified nor conducive to the
administration of criminal justice. It is further observed that if the
petitioner has remained under prolonged incarceration during the
relevant period, the investigative burden assumes a more exacting
dimension. In such circumstances, it squarely falls within the
province of the investigating agency to elucidate, through cogent
and legally admissible material, the precise modality by which the
petitioner is alleged to have communicated, transmitted
instructions, or otherwise coordinated with the principal accused
from within the confines of the correctional institution.
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (7 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
Mere conjecture that an incarcerated individual could have
orchestrated or facilitated the alleged offence, without
substantiating the mechanism of such communication, would be
legally untenable. The prosecution must demonstrate, by objective
evidence, whether there existed access to telephonic
communication, clandestine channels, intermediaries, electronic
correspondence, or any other conduit capable of enabling such
transmission of instructions. In the absence of such proof, the
allegation would remain speculative and bereft of probative
foundation.
6.5. When an accused is in judicial custody, the presumption of
physical restraint becomes a material circumstance requiring
affirmative rebuttal. The investigative agency cannot circumvent
this factual impediment by resting upon bare assertions. It is
incumbent upon them to establish a credible link connecting the
incarcerated petitioner with the alleged criminal enterprise,
notwithstanding his custodial status. Therefore, if the prosecution
seeks to attribute conspiratorial or supervisory involvement to a
person already lodged in prison, the evidentiary threshold
correspondingly heightens. The agency must demonstrate not
merely the existence of an allegation, but the plausible and
demonstrable means through which such alleged complicity was
operationalized from within incarceration. Absent such
substantiation, the accusation would lack the necessary juridical
solidity to withstand judicial scrutiny.
6.6. At the same time, this Court does not find, at this nascent
stage, such exceptional circumstances as would justify quashment
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (8 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
of the FIR or interdiction of the investigation in toto. The
allegations in the FIR, though presently resting on limited material
qua the petitioner, cannot be adjudicated conclusively in writ
proceedings, particularly when the investigation is still in progress.
6.7. Consequently, while this Court refrains from entering into the
merits of the allegations or recording findings that may prejudice
either side, it deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to
ensure that the investigation is conducted in a scrupulously fair
and impartial manner. The investigating agency is thus directed to
carry out the investigation strictly in accordance with law,
uninfluenced by any extraneous considerations, and to ensure that
no coercive or oppressive steps are taken against the petitioner
except in strict compliance with statutory provisions and
constitutional safeguards.
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present criminal writ
petition is partly allowed to the limited extent that the
respondents are directed to conduct a fair, impartial, and legally
compliant investigation in FIR No.10/2026 dated 12.01.2026
registered at Police Station Pur, District Bhilwara, for offences
under Sections 3, 25 and 25(8) of the Arms Act, 1959
(Amendment 2019). No further relief, including quashment of the
FIR or release of the petitioner, is granted at this stage.
8. Stay petition and all pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
201-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8468] (9 of 9) [CRLW-603/2026]
(Uploaded on 17/02/2026 at 01:51:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 18/02/2026 at 08:37:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
