Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1283 (RAJ)

Kapil Dev Ranwa v. State of Rajasthan

2003-09-10

S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, perused the record of the case and further documents produced by the counsel for the accused petitioner. 2. I have gone through the report of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track, No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. He has reported that out of 41 witnesses cited by the prosecution, statements of 21 witnesses have been recorded; 10 witnesses have been given up by the prosecution and the statements of 10 witnesses are to be recorded. It is stated in that report that accused the against petitioner challan has been filed showing him absconding. There is standing arrest warrant against him. 3. The First Information Report No. 78/1997 was registered at Police Station Mahila II, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur for the offences under Sections 376, 366 and 341 of the I.PC. The accused petitioner, against whom undisputedly there is standing arrest warrant. Filed application under Section 438 of the Cr:RC. and prayed thereon for grant him bail in anticipation of his arrest. This application has been rejected by the learned trial court under the impugned order. Thus, this application under Section 438 of the Cr.PC. before this Court. 4. Statement of the prosecutrix has already been recorded in the criminal case. The copy of her statements has been produced on record and there she has made a categorical statement, " ujsUnz flgkx us esjs lkFk cykRdkj fd;kA ogka vkse fctjkfu;k us eq>s dgk fd Hkfo"; esa esjs nksLrksa dks [kq'k j[kuk oukZ rsjs HkkbZ&cgu vkSj ekrk&firk dks dqN Hkh dj nsaxs vkSj rw dgha dh ugha jgsxhA lu~ 93&94 esa ujsUnz flgkx dk ?kj ij Qksu vk;k vkSj dgk fd esjh lgsyh rkjk pkS/kjh Hkfo"; esa rqEgkjh lgsyh cudj rqEgsa Qksu djrh jgsxh vkSj tgkWa&tgkWa og cqyk,] rqe vkrh jguk vkSj ftl fnu rqe ugha vkbZ] mlh fnu rqEgkjs izse i= vkSj v'yhy QksVksa v[kckj esa Niok fn;s tkosaxs vkSj yksxksa dks crk fn;s tkosaxsA " 5. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that -Narendra Sihag filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. before Honble the Supreme Court of India and the same was allowed under order dated 10th May, 1999. The copy of the order of the Honble Supreme Court is placed on the record and the same is marked as Court Document No. 1. This order reads as under: "Heard Mr. The copy of the order of the Honble Supreme Court is placed on the record and the same is marked as Court Document No. 1. This order reads as under: "Heard Mr. Malhotra learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. Several other accused persons have been granted the privilege of bail by the High Court of Rajasthan. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to grant the privilege of Section 438 Cr.RC. to the petitioner. We accordingly direct that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail by the arresting authority. The S.L.R is disposed of accordingly." 6. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with the case of Narendra Sihag. 7. The learned counsel appearing for Special Public Prosecutor does not dispute that Narendra Sihag is an accused in this case. In para No. 4 of the application it is stated that during the course of investigation Vivek Bishnoi, Bharat Bhushan, Miss Tara Chaudhary, Sahaskaran, Sandeep Dahiya and Om Bijaniya were arrested and sooner or later all have been released on bail. 8. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner made a reference to the case of Harish Sihag, author accused in the case, who has also been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2426/2002. 9. He further made reference to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8281/2002 decided on 27th of January, 2003. In that writ petition there were two petitioners Randheer Kadvasara and Rajesh Chaudhary, against whom standing warrants were also there. They filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3840/1998 under Section 438 of the Cr.RC. and that had been dismissed on 19th of January, 1998. Thereafter they filed second bail application being S.B. Cr. Misc. Second Bail Application No. 4097/2002 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 7th of August, 2002. Then these two persons filed the writ petition aforesaid and therein this Court has been pleased to order of conversion of the non-bailable arrest warrants issued against them into bailable warrants. The copy of the order of this court, aforesaid, is taken on record as Court Document No. 2. 10. Then these two persons filed the writ petition aforesaid and therein this Court has been pleased to order of conversion of the non-bailable arrest warrants issued against them into bailable warrants. The copy of the order of this court, aforesaid, is taken on record as Court Document No. 2. 10. The learned counsel for the accused petitioner relying upon the documents contended that the accused petitioners name is Kapil Dev Ranwa and not Kapil Choudhary. He got admission in Vidhya Niketan, Pilani on 4th of July, 1979 in Class I (Jr.) and left the School on 30th of April, 1992 after passing his 12th Class. He was a regular student and residing in the Boarding House there. As per the statement of the prosecutrix, the learned counsel for the accused petitioner submitted, she came in contact with Om Bijaniya in the year 1990. The accused petitioner did not come at Jaipur upto 30th of April, 1992. These documents are also taken on record as Court Documents No. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 respectively. 11. Prima facie, what it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused petitioner has substance, though it may be a matter of evidence. In the facts of this case I am of the considered view that the case of the accused petitioner is not distinguishable with the case of Narendra Sihag and others. At the cost of repetition it is to be stated that Narendra Sihag has been granted anticipatory bail by Honble the Supreme Court of India. The State of Rajasthan, no doubt, has made ail arrangements to strongly oppose this bail application by engaging special public prosecutrix but the matter is to be decided on its own facts. 12. That apart this Court in the case of two other accused Randheer Kadvasara and Rajesh Choudhary has already ordered for conversion of standing arrest warrants into bailable warrants and it is nobodys case that thereafter they could not have released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.RC. is allowed. 14. That apart this Court in the case of two other accused Randheer Kadvasara and Rajesh Choudhary has already ordered for conversion of standing arrest warrants into bailable warrants and it is nobodys case that thereafter they could not have released on bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. 13. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.RC. is allowed. 14. It is, therefore, directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Kapil Dev Ranwa son of Devkaran Ranwa, by caste Jat, Resident of Sainik Basti, Churu, in FIR No. 78/1997 registered at Police Station Mahila II, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur, District Jaipur, he be released on bail by the concerned SHO lnvestigating Officer provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10.000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions: (1) That the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (2) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing sch facts to the court or any police officer; and (3) That the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. 15. The application accordingly stands disposed of.Application allowed. *******