Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2834 (RAJ)

MOHAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, THROUGH THE PUBLIC Prosecutor

2006-10-09

JITENDRA RAY GOYAL

body2006
Judgment JITENDRA RAY GOYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS third bail application under section 439 Cr. P. C. has been filed by accused petitioners mohar Singh and Taj Singh in FIR No. 207 / 2005 registered at Police Station kumher, District Bharatpur for the offence under sections 147, 148, 447, 323, 307 and 302 IPC in which after investigation police has filed the charge-sheet and trial has commenced. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for accused petitioners as well as complainant, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the case diary and other material produced during the course of arguments. ( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the accused petitioners that they have falsely been implicated in this matter, the accused petitioner Mohar Singh is an old man of 71 years of age and it is not alleged that he inflicted any blow on the deceased. It is also submitted that Taj singh has also not been assigned any fatal blow to the deceased. It is further submitted that the trial in this matter has been held up since two revision petitions have been filed by other co-accused against whom cognizance has already been taken and they have been summoned by invoking the provisions of section 319 Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the accused petitioner mohar Singh instigated to the other co-accused to kill the deceased and other injured persons of the complainant party and the another accused petitioner taj Singh also took active part in this heinous crime. ( 5 ) I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. In my considered view it can not be a ground for bail that other co-accused persons have filed revision petitions before this Court which are pending before the coordinate bench. Without making any observations on merits, having considered the nature of offence, allegations levelled against the accused petitioners and all other facts and circumstances, I do not deem it proper to enlarge the accused petitioner, on bail under section 439 Cr. P. C ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, this third bail applicant is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.