Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Shakeel @ Bakra vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp … on 18 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 127/2017
Shakeel @ Bakra S/o Shri Abdul Khalil, R/o House No. 17,
Banjara Colony P.s. Kishorepura, Kota, Presently R/o Narain
Panwale Ki Gali, Bajaj Khana, Kota Presently Confined In Central
Jail Kota
----Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1447/2016
Shahid Son Of Mushtak Ali, R/o Near Tanki Wale Baba, Shivpura
Police Station Dadabadi, Kota. At Present In Central Jail, Kota
—-Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
—-Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1538/2016
Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Krishna Murari, R/o Diyapur, Distt.
Uraiya, U.p. At Present 3 R 45 Talwandi, P.s. Jawahar Nagar, Kota
Accused Appellant In Kota Jail
—-Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through PP
—-Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M. I. Beg
Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with
Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh
Mr. Sunil Kumar Tyagi with
Mr. Anirudh Tyagi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P.
Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP
Mr. Vinod Sharma
Ms. Neha Goyal
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (2 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
18/02/2026
All these three appeals are directed against the judgment
dated 15.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.6 Kota (for short, “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions
Case No. 232/2011, whereby the accused-appellants (for short,
‘the appellants’) have been convicted and sentenced as under:-
1. Under Section 147 IPC: Two years’ simple imprisonment and
fine of ₹5,000/- each; in default whereof, one month’s simple
imprisonment.
2. Under Section 364-A or 364-A/149 IPC: Life imprisonment
and fine of ₹45,000/- each; in default whereof, three months’
additional simple imprisonment.
Sentences to run concurrently.
The relevant facts, in brief, are that the complainant-Shri
Vijay Mehra (PW-1) made a parcha bayan (Ex. P-1) on 10.09.2009
at about 2:25 am at Surgical Ward, MBS Hospital, Kota, stating
therein that when he was going to his residence for lunch on
09.09.2009 at about 1:00 P.M., he was taken by Imran @ Parchi
to the appellant- Shakeel @ Bakra, who along with Imran @ Parchi
and six other co-accused took him on motorcycles to various
places in Kota. It was alleged that his brother was threatened by
Shakeel @ Bakra to cough up a sum of ₹1,00,000/- failing which
the complainant was threatened of dire consequences. It was
further alleged that upon receiving a telephonic message that his
brother has lodged a report, he was beaten by the accused
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (3 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
persons including the appellants and only after extending an
assurance by him not to take any action against them, he was
permitted to go. Based thereupon, an FIR No. 173/2009 came to
be registered at Police Station Kotwali Kota, District-Kota City,
under Sections 147, 149, 351, 323, 342 and 364-A IPC and
Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after investigation
charge-sheeted the appellants as also the co-accused Imran @
Parchi, Sunil Khatik, Haneef @ Rinku @ Biri and Nasir under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 342 364(A) IPC and, the co-
accused Imran @ Parchi, additionally, under Section 4/25 of Arms
Act 1959. Charges under Sections 147, 341, 323/149, 342,
342/149, 364(A), 364(A)/149 IPC were framed against the
appellants as also the co-accused Imran @ Parchi, Sunil Khatik,
Haneef @ Rinku @ Biri and Nasir. An additional charge under
Section 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 was framed against the co-
accused Imran @ Parchi. After trial, while, the co-accused Imran
@ Parchi, Sunil Khatik, Haneef @ Rinku @ Biri were acquitted of
the charges framed against them, the appellants have been
convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinabove. It may also be
pertinent to submit here that the co-accused Nasir son of Nanhe
Khan has absconded during trial and it is revealed from the
material available on record that his trial is pending.
Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsels for the
appellants submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in
recording their conviction based on surmises and conjectures in
absence of any legally admissible evidence available on record
against them. They contended that the testimony of the
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (4 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
complainant-Shri Vijay Mehra (PW-1) is full of contradictions,
improvements and embellishments on material aspects of the
case. Inviting attention of this Court towards his parcha bayan
(Ex. P-1), they would contend that while in it, it was alleged that
he was taken to appellant-Shakeel @ Bakra by Imran @ Parchi;
and thereafter, by all the accused persons to various places; but,
in his deposition dated 17.02.2010, he has substituted Imran @
Parchi with “one another person”. They further submitted that his
examination-in-chief recorded on 17.02.2010 reflects as if he was
subjected to the offence of kidnapping only by the appellant
Shakeel @ Bakra without assistance of any other accused.
Learned counsels submitted that the learned trial Court did not
appreciate that all the material prosecution witnesses including
the complainant such as, his mother Chandrakala (PW-2), his
father Shri Chouthmal Mehra (PW-3) and his brother Shri Brijesh
Mehra (PW-8) have turned hostile and have not supported the
prosecution story. Referring to and relying upon testimony of
Brijesh Mehra (PW-8), they contended that it reflects that, as a
matter of fact, it was a case of some money dispute between the
parties and to harass and victimise them, they have been
implicated in this false and concocted case. Learned counsel for
the appellant-Praveen Kumar would also submit that though, the
complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that he did not
know the appellant before the incident and reckon him as an
accused only because he was so addressed by the co-accused
persons during their conversation; but, no test identification
parade was conducted by the prosecution to connect him with the
offence, in absence whereof, his conviction is bad in law.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (5 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
Learned counsels for the appellants, therefore, prayed that
the appeal be allowed, the judgment impugned dated 15.11.2016
be quashed and set aside and they may be acquitted of the
charges framed against them.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the
submissions and supporting the findings recorded by the learned
trial Court, prayed for dismissal of the appeals.
Heard. Considered.
The genesis of the prosecution case is parcha bayan of the
complainant- Shri Vijay Mehra (Ex. P-1) made at about 02:25
a.m. on 10.09.2009 in the hospital wherein, it was alleged that
when he was going to his home to have lunch at about 1:00 p.m.,
in the market, he was taken by Imran @ Parchi to Shakeel @
Bakra who, along with Imran @ Parchi and six other accused
person took him on motorcycles to various places in the city of
Kota. It was further alleged that at one of such places, the
complainant’s brother-Brajesh was asked to pay ₹1,00,000/-
failing which the complainant was threatened of dire
consequences. It was also alleged that when the accused came to
know that instead of paying ₹1,00,000/-, his brother has lodged a
report, he was beaten by them. It also contained the allegation
that he was threatened by Imran @ Parchi with a knife and by
appellant-Shakeel @ Bakra with a revolver. It was stated that only
on an assurance extended by him that the report lodged by his
brother has been torn down and he would not disclose the incident
to anybody, he was permitted to go. Thus, though, in his parcha
bayan, he has alleged that in addition to Imran @ Parchi and
Shakeel @ Bakra, six accused person subjected him to the
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (6 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
offence, whom he could recognize, however, in his Court
deposition as PW-1, instead of naming Imran @ Parchi, he has
alleged that he was taken by “one another person” to Shakeel @
Bakra. Rest of the allegations in his examination-in-chief were also
directed against the appellant-Shakeel @ Bakra. Upon being
declared hostile, he was cross-examined by the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor wherein, he has categorically stated that he had
wrongly mentioned the name of Imran @ Parchi in his parcha
bayan. In his cross-examination by the defence on 24.06.2014, he
has denied that he was subjected to any offence by Imran @
Parchi, Hanif @ Rinku @ Biri or Sunil Khateek. Qua the appellant
Shahid, he admitted that his name was suggested by the police
but, feigned ignorance when asked, which police personnel?
Further, his parcha bayan as also his deposition as PW1
reveals that he was taken from the Bhartendu market to Hiran
Bazar via Rampura Bazar where they stayed for about 10-15
minutes, at 02:00 P.M., they went to Adharshila and returned back
to Hiran Bazar at about 4:00 p.m. from where he was taken to
Nadi Ghat and was beaten. Thereafter, he was taken to a factory
towards DCM and lastly to an old workshop in the market. In his
cross-examination, he has admitted that all these places were
heavily crowded and they crossed at least three to four police
stations while going from one place to another. Conspicuously, he
did not raise alarm at any stage, although, he has tried to say that
at one place he cried for help to small children; but, it does not
inspire confidence. His this unnatural conduct raises a serious
doubt as to veracity of prosecution case.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (7 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
Moreover, indisputably, the prosecution case hinges mainly
on complainant’s sole testimony inasmuch as despite being
kidnapped from a crowded market place; despite being taken to
various crowded places in the city of Kota in broad day light and
despite being threatened with knife and revolver and beaten also
in the crowded place, no eye witness was examined by the
prosecution to corroborate the allegations levelled by the
complainant. We are conscious of the trite law that it is quality of
the testimony which matters and not the quantity as also that
testimony of the victim complainant alone is sufficient to record
conviction but, it must be of sterling worth; however, in the
instant case, we do not find it to be so. Furthermore, the
complainant has stated, as PW1, that upon reaching home after
the incident, he disclosed every information to his family
members; but, his mother Smt. Chandrakala (PW-2) has
categorically denied that he disclosed name of any accused.
Moreover, she has been declared hostile and upon cross-
examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, she has
denied her deposition made in the police statement (Ex. P-3).
In view thereof, we are not persuaded to uphold the findings
of the learned trial Court regarding rioting and kidnapping.
Moreover, the allegation of demand on mobile phone has not
been established by Investigating Agency by either seizure of the
mobile phone/sim card or by producing the call details of the
concerned mobile. We also find that it was the prosecution case
that the complainant did not know the mobile number of his
brother and after getting the same from his mother on a landline
phone, it was made available to the appellant-Shakeel to converse
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (8 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
with the brother. When confronted on this aspect, the complainant
stated that it was wrong that since his brother used to change his
mobile number, he was unaware of it. However, his brother, as
PW-8, has stated that the complainant has previously spoken to
him on his this mobile number on numerous occasions. Further,
he, though, denied that he used to change the number and stated
that the mobile number which he was using on the date of
incident, was with him for a long time; but, in his cross-
examination, taking a contradictory stand, stated that he used to
change his mobile number on account of regular threatening. He
has further stated that he used to keep his mobile phone switched
off as he was receiving threatening call from Shakeel @ Bakra. He
has further stated that he was receiving such call from 5 to 6 day
prior to the date of incident; however, this averment is absent in
his court deposition dated 24.10.2011. Moreover, the prosecution
did not explain as to why the appellant-Shakeel @ Bakra was
threatening him for last about 5 to 6 days as also, who was
threatening him regularly.
There is one more important aspect of the matter. Although,
the learned trial Court has held the appellants guilty of offence,
inter alia, under Section 364-A IPC; but, we are not convinced
that the prosecution has been able to establish either the
kidnapping or that it was for ransom. In the FIR, it is alleged that
after talking to his brother-Shri Brijesh Mehra, Shakeel asked him
that since his brother was not paying ₹1,00,000/-, what was to be
done with him? It was not alleged specifically that this sum was
demanded towards ransom. Thereafter, upon receiving a call on
his mobile, Shakeel informed that instead of sending ₹1,00,000/-,
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (9 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
his brother has lodged a report against him. The FIR further
contains the averments that thereafter, he was beaten and
threatened to get the report withdrawn and only after being
satisfied that the report lodged against him has been torn down,
he was permitted to go. As, we would discuss at appropriate
place, from the tesimony of the complainant and his brother Shri
Brijesh Mehra (PW-8), it is reflected that there was some money
dispute in between them and the accused party and the appellant
Praveen has lodged an FIR No.272/2012 against Shri Brijesh
Mehra with the Police Station Jawahar Nagar for not refunding the
money and playing fraud. As already held, brother of the
complainant namely, Brijesh Mehra has specifically stated that he
used to keep his mobile phone switched off as he was receiving
threatening call from Shakeel @ Bakra for last 5 to 6 days but, the
prosecution did not explain as to why the appellant was making
such threats. Even otherwise, it is beyond human comprehension
as to why the complainant, a para medical staff in a private clinic,
was chosen to be kidnapped from a crowded market place in
broad day light by as many as 8 accused which, were later on
joined by two more accused, for a meager ransom of ₹1,00,000/-
and why, he was let go without payment of any ransom. Under
these circumstances, we are not persuaded to hold with certainty
that the sum of ₹1,00,000/- demanded was towards ransom and
not towards the money allegedly due against brother of the
complainant.
In view of aforesaid evidence, we are not convinced that the
prosecution has been able to establish that the complainant was
subjected to any offence, by the appellants, as alleged. However,
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (10 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
now, we proceed to examine individual case of each appellant
before us.
So far as allegation against appellant-Praveen is concerned,
although, the complainant has admitted during his cross-
examination that he did not know Praveen before the date of
incident and has made accusation against him only because other
accused persons were taking this name during their conversation;
but, conspicuously, no test identification parade was conducted to
connect the appellant Praveen with the offence. Furthermore, from
the testimony of Shri Brijesh Mehra (PW-8), it is apparent that
both the brothers knew him prior to the alleged incident. In his
cross examination, Shri Brijesh has admitted that Praveen has
lodged an FIR No.278/12 against him. He has further admitted
that in the Police Station Jawahar Nagar, a case was registered
against him for not refunding the money and playing fraud qua
Praveen and other persons. The complainant although, feigned
ignorance when asked during his cross-examination that Praveen
has lodged a report against Shri Brijesh at Police Station Jawahar
Nagar with allegation of fraud; but, admitted in the same breath
that his name and address came to his knowledge before
registration of the case.
So far as appellant-Shakeel@ Bakra is concerned, beside the
observations already made by us doubting the veracity and
reliability of the prosecution case, it is relevant to note here that,
upon cross-examination by his learned counsel on 07.11.2014, the
complainant has admitted that he did not know the boys who
committed offence against him and had named them in his
discretion. He has further admitted that he learnt their name the
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (11 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
way the accused were addressing each other. Again, the appellant
was not subjected to test identification parade to demonstrate that
he was the same person against whom allegations were levelled
by the complainant.
So far as appellant-Shahid is concerned, he was not named
in the FIR and the complainant has admitted, in his cross
examination, that his name was suggested by the police. Further,
as already observed by us, in the FIR, it was alleged that in
addition to Imran @ Parchi and Shakeel @ Bakra, six other
accused were involved whom he could recognize but, no test
identification parade of the appellant-Shahid was conducted.
From the conspectus of aforesaid analysis based on evidence
available on record, we are not convinced that the prosecution has
been able to bring home, beyond a shadow of doubt, the charges
that the complainant Shri Vijay Mehra was subjected to offence of
either rioting or, kidnapping for ransom and the appeals deserve
to be allowed.
Resultantly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment dated
15.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.
6, Kota in Sessions Case No. 232/2011 is quashed and set aside
and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against
them.
The appellant Shakeel @ Bakra S/o Shri Abdul Khalil
shall be set at liberty forthwith if not detained in any other case.
Since, the appellants-Shahid Son of Mushtak Ali and Praveen
Kumar S/o Shri Krishna Murari are on bail, their bail bonds are
discharged.
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:7834-DB] (12 of 12) [CRLA-127/2017]
In view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Section 481
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellants namely
Shakeel @ Bakra S/o Shri Abdul Khalil, Shahid S/o Mushtak
Ali and Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Krishna Murari are directed
to furnish a personal bond each in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and a
surety in the like amount each within four weeks before the
Registrar (Judl.) of this Court which shall be effective for a period
of six months with the stipulation that in that event of special
leave petition being filed against the judgment or on grant of
leave, the appellants aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall
appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
JKP/40-42
(Uploaded on 12/03/2026 at 05:25:23 PM)
(Downloaded on 20/03/2026 at 09:36:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)