Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2818 (RAJ)

Sribhan v. State of Rajasthan

2005-10-26

N.K.JAIN

body2005
Judgment Narendra Kumar Jain, J.-Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has filed this criminal revision petition under Section 397, CrPC against the order dated 20.07.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Hindauncity in Sessions Case No. 64/2001 whereby cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 302, IPC and against other co-accused persons namely Koki son of Shri Rajdhar and Hansram son of Shri Shrichand for the offences under Sections 109, 120 read with 302, IPC on the application filed by the prosecution under Section 319, CrPC. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, submitted that he is not challenging the order taking cognizance but his prayer is only limited to an order whereby the petitioner has been summoned through warrant of arrest, after taking cognizance against him. He contended that co-accused persons namely Koki and Hansram against whom cognizance was taken vide same impugned order, preferred a revision petition before this Court i.e., S.B. Criminal Revision Petition 698/2005 and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the revision petition as withdrawn passed an order that in case, the petitioners surrender before the concerned Court, then they may be released on bail, therefore, same directions which have been passed in the case of co-accused persons by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 01.08.2005, may be passed in this case also. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not oppose the revision petition in view of the order dated 01.08.2005 passed in S.B. Cr. R.P. No. 698/2005. 5. After considering submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and after examining the impugned order dated 20.07.2005 as well as order dated 01.08.2005 passed in S.B. Cr.R.P. No. 698/2005 and further that prima facie main accused in the present case, appears to be Keshav against whom there was a specific allegation about gun shot injury and further that no challan was filed against the petitioner and investigation remained pending against him under Section 173 (8), CrPC, I consider it just and proper to allow this revision petition in part. 6. Consequently, the revision petition of the petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points sought to be raised in this revision petition before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. 6. Consequently, the revision petition of the petitioner is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the points sought to be raised in this revision petition before the trial Court at the time of framing of the charge. It is further directed that in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial Court on or before 111.2005 and apply for the bail, then he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and further undertakes to appear before the said Court as and when he is called upon. 7. The revision petition of the petitioner is accordingly disposed of in the manner as stated above.