Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1392 (RAJ)

JAI PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2007-07-25

DALIP SINGH

body2007
Judgment DALIP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. has been filed by jai Prakash and Parmeshwari wife of Bansi Lal. ( 2 ) THE bail application has been filed on account of the fact that one Ram Bhagat who is brother of Bansilal husband of the petitioner No. 2 Parmeshwari was found murdered as a result of which a case under Section 302 IPC was registered. ( 3 ) AFTER investigation one Suresh and pawan were challenged and are facing trial for the offence under Section 302 and 120b ipc was registered. ( 4 ) DURING the course of the trial after the statement of PW4 Vijay Singh, PW-5 ranjeet Singh, PW-6 Ramesh Kumar, PW-7 Kishan Kumar as well as PW-8 Ummed singh were recorded by the learned trial court and on account of the fact that in the statement of the above witnesses some facts came to light that Parmeshwari wife of bansilal who is brother of the deceased Ram bhagat had illicit relations with the petitioner No. 1 Jai Prakash, as a result of which at the instance of Jai Prakash, Suresh and pawan murdered Ram Bhagat brother of bansilal as Ram Bhagat who was opposed to the relationship of the petitioner No. 2 parmeshwari with the petitioner No. 1 Jai prakash. ( 5 ) IN the light of the above statement which came to be recorded and evidence which was produced during the trial, the learned trial court on being drawn attention to by the learned Public Prosecutor proceeded under Section 319 Cr. P. C. to take cognizance in the case against the aforesaid two petitioners No. 1. Jai Prakash and No. 2. Parmeshwari be summoned by arrest warrant vide order dated 15. 06. 2007. Hence, this application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. by Jaiprakash and Parmeshwari. ( 6 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the order dated 15. 06. 2007 which has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is bad in eye of law and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Safi reported in 2007 VAD (SO page 228. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to contend that the order dated 15. 06. 2007 which has been passed in exercise of the powers under Section 319 Cr. P. C. is bad in eye of law and relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Safi reported in 2007 VAD (SO page 228. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the witnesses pw-4 Vijay Singh, PW-5 Ranjeet Singh, PW-6 ramesh Kumar, PW-7 Kishan Kumar and pw-8 Ummed Singh in their statements recorded before the court have stated specifically that Jai Prakash the petitioner No. 1 had illicit relations with petitioner No. 2 parmeshwari who is the wife of younger brother of deceased Ram Bhagat namely bansilal and that Ram Bhagat deceased used to object to the aforesaid relationship of Parmeshwari with Jai Prakash as she was the wife of his younger brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case against the petitioners has been made out on account of political rivalry between the petitioner No. 1 Jai Prakash who has been the Ex Sarpanch and PW-Vijay Singh who is presently the Sarpanch of the Gram panchayat and as such with a view to eliminate his rival Vijay Singh has made false deposition himself and through other witnesses PW-5 to PW-8. So far as the above contention is concerned in case that be so the petitioners has the right to demolish the prosecution case by cross-examining the witnesses or by leading direct defence evidence at the trial and the learned trial court after appreciating the same would come to the conclusion in that behalf. But at present there is evidence on record which implicates the petitioners in a case under Section 302, 201 IPC which is punishable with imprisonment with life. In the facts and circumstances it cannot be denied that before the learned trial court in the form of statements of the above witnesses there is evidence to suggest that there is evidence regarding the illicit relations between the petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 which shows the motive for the crime. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was the former Sarpanch and the petitioner No. 2 was the Ward panch of the Panchayat during his tenure. Thus they are known to each other. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner No. 1 was the former Sarpanch and the petitioner No. 2 was the Ward panch of the Panchayat during his tenure. Thus they are known to each other. ( 8 ) THUS, at this stage it would not be proper for this court to express any opinion on the merits of the accusation in the evidence which has come on record on account of which the petitioners have been summoned by non-bailable warrants finding their involvement in the case under Section 302, 201 IPC. Prima facie there is material to suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the case, which is punishable with life imprisonment. In view of the above I am not inclined to accept this bail application under Section 438 Cr. P. C. of Jai prakash and Parmeshwari petitioners. Consequently, this bail application is dismissed. Petition dismissed.