Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1198 (RAJ)

Sandeep Dahiya and 2 others v. State of Rajasthan

2000-09-22

G.L.GUPTA

body2000
JUDGMENT 1. - These are the applications for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. of the three accused who are facing trial for offence under Section 120-B, 342, 367, 376(2) (G) I.P.C. Sandeep Dahiya and Sahas Karan have moved the applications in this court for the first time whereas this is Vth application of Kaur Singh. 2. Shri Choudhary, learned counsel for the accused-applicants contends that co-accused have been released on bail by the Apex Court and by this Court vide order dated 17.7.98 in Cr. Appeal No. 661/98, order dated 1.2.99 in Cr. Appeal No. 8/1999, order dated 10.5.99 in SLP (Cr) No. 339/1999, order dated 11.2.99 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 709/99, order dated 28.8.98 in Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 3261/98 and order dated 11.9.2000 in SB Cr. Misc. Bail Applications No. 1575/2000 and 1564/2000. He points out that earlier bail applications of the two applicants were rejected mainly on the ground that by that time the statement of the prosecutrix had not been recorded by the trial court. Pointing out that the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded by the trial court, Mr. Choudhary draws my attention to certain portions of her statement. He also points out that the prosecutrix did not complain about the rape when she met Sohan Lal Suthar, Warden. He further points out that before the identification parade was held in prison the photos of the applicants had been published in the newspapers and the prosecutrix admits that she had seen the applicants for the first time in the prison. He refers to the police statement of the prosecutrix dated 30.5.98 to show the character of the prosecutrix. Shri Choudhary further pointed out that the trial of the case is held up because the trial court has ordered the impleadment of the new accused in the case and the service on those newly added accused has yet not been completed. Pointing out that the applicant is in custody for about 3 years, he prays that he be released on bail. Almost the same contentions have been advanced by Shri Ansari. 3. Shri Bajwa, learned Sr. Advocate, Special P.P. for the State opposes the bail applications mainly on the ground that the case is of serious nature and the court should not be sympathetic towards the accused who are facing trial under Section 376(2)(G) IPC, 4. Almost the same contentions have been advanced by Shri Ansari. 3. Shri Bajwa, learned Sr. Advocate, Special P.P. for the State opposes the bail applications mainly on the ground that the case is of serious nature and the court should not be sympathetic towards the accused who are facing trial under Section 376(2)(G) IPC, 4. I have given the matter my thoughtful consideration. In the earlier application of Kaur Singh decided by this Court vide order dated 22nd October, 1999 this court has directed that the prosecutrix be examined as a first witness and application for bail of the applicant shall be considered afresh after the statement of the prosecutrix is recorded. 5. After the order dated 22.10.99, the statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded. Thus, obviously. there is change in the circumstances. It is evident that the trial of the case is not likely to be completed in near future as the new accused have been added and on their appearance the evidence will have to be recorded afresh. Moreover, some of the accused have already been granted bail by this court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances. I thing it a fit case in which the three accused applicants should be released on bail. 6. I, therefore, accept both the bail applications and order that applicants Sandeep Dahiya son of Shri Vijay Singh, Sahaskaran @ Sanskar son of Hetram and Kaur Singh son of Shri Banwari Lal be released on bail provided each of them executes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/-(Rs. Thirty Thousand) with two sureties.in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand) each to the satisfaction of the trial court with the stipulation to appear before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever ordered to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail Applications allowed. *******