Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1014 (RAJ)

Sattu @ Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

2012-04-20

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. This fifth bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner for bail on the ground that his daughter's engagement ceremony is to be solemnised on 27.4.2012. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.10.2006 complainant Surendra Sharma @ Bholu, submitted a written report, on the basis of which and F.I.R. No. 398/2006 at Police Station Nayapura, Kota for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused persons. 4. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet against seven accused persons namely Brijmohan, Govind, Vinod, Raja @ Rajesh, Kanhaiyalal, Vijay and Jeetu @ Jitendra for the offence under Sections 302, 148, 149, 201, 216 and 120-B Indian Penal Code and investigation was kept pending against the main accused- petitioner under Section 173(8) Criminal Procedure Code Later on the accused-petitioner surrendered himself in the Court concerned. Thereafter, the police submitted supplementary charge sheet under Sections 302, 148, 149, and 120-B Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner with two other persons namely Radhey Shyam and Badal. 5. The first bail application of the accused-petitioner under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code was rejected as withdrawn by the order of this Court dated 14.4.2008. The second bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code moved by the accused- petitioner was rejected by this Court by a detailed order dated 23.3.2009 S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 885 of 2011 Sattn @ Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan was rejected on 4.3.2011.'This third interim bail was on the ground that his wife was seriously ill and was under regular treatment as the doctors advised her for operation of uterus and there was no one in the family to look after her to made arrangements of operation etc. Thereafter the petitioner filed forth Bail Application No. 8785/ 2011 and this Court vide order dated 11.10.2011 rejected the bail application. The trial Court rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2012. Now this fifth interim bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner on 3.4.2012 6. In this fifth bail application Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2007 and thus he has remained in jail for four year and three months. Now this fifth interim bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner on 3.4.2012 6. In this fifth bail application Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the accused-petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2007 and thus he has remained in jail for four year and three months. It has been further stated that the accused-petitioner has been implicated with the aid of Section 120B Indian Penal Code and there is no evidence till today to implicate the accused-petitioner under this provision of law. Out of 57 witnesses the prosecution has examined 26 witnesses and thereafter no witness has been examined. Placing reliance on Badra Pehadiya and others v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1981 SC 939 . It was argued that the accused-petitioner should be granted bail as he has already remained in jail for more than four years and three months. 7. Mr. Peeyush Kumar, Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a hardened Criminal. He is main accused in this case, as many as 17 criminal cases have been registered against him. As there are serious allegations of Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner, at this stage it is not a fit case to release the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. I have considered the rival submissions. 9. While rejecting the second bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code of the accused-petitioner this Court observed as under: "From a bare perusal of the facts of the case, order dated 27.2.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kota, other material made available to me as also past conduct of the accused-petitioner, it is clear that the accused- petitioner is a habitual offender, as 17 criminal cases have been registered against him and after rejection of the first bail application, I find that no subsequent development have taken place in the instant case. Thus the accused-petitioner does not deserve to the benefit of second bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code " 10. While rejecting the third bail application this Court observed as under: I have considered the rival submissions. It may be mentioned that on 11.6.2007 the accused-petitioner moved bail application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order of this Court dated 27.7.2007. Thereafter the petitioner moved second bail application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code on 13.12.2007. It may be mentioned that on 11.6.2007 the accused-petitioner moved bail application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code and the same was dismissed for non-prosecution by the order of this Court dated 27.7.2007. Thereafter the petitioner moved second bail application under Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code on 13.12.2007. This second bail application was rejected on 8.1.2008 as the petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2007. The Sessions Judge while rejecting the bail application of the accused-petitioner in his order dated 27.2.2008 observed that the wife of the deceased Amita Sharma in her statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code stated that the accused-petitioner was having an enmity with her husband. Looking to the serious allegations of Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner and as he is a habitual offender and there are. 17 criminal cases registered against him, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for interim bail particularly on the ground that his wife is to be operated for removing Uterus. 11. In the result, this third bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for interim bail is devoid of merit stands rejected." 12. 17 criminal cases registered against him, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for interim bail particularly on the ground that his wife is to be operated for removing Uterus. 11. In the result, this third bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for interim bail is devoid of merit stands rejected." 12. In the order dated 11.10.2011, rejecting the four bail application, this Court observed as under: " eSaus mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k ds rdksZ ij euu fd;k ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;kA izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izFke tekur izkFkZuki= mldh vksj ls =qfV nwj ugha fd;s tkus dkj.k fnukad 16-8-2007 dks fujLr dj fn;k x;k FkkA blds mijkUr izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr f}rh; tekur izkFkZuki= dks bl U;k;ky; }kjk foLr'r vkns'k fnukad 23-3-2009 ls fujLr dj fn;k x;k ,oa mDr vkns'k esa ;g vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ 17 QkStnkjh izdj.k ntZ gSaA rRi'pkr~ izkFkhZ dh vksj ls r'rh; tekur izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls Hkh U;k;ky; us izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftls Hkh U;k;ky; us foLr'r vkns'k fnukad 4-3-2011 ds }kjk fujLr dj fn;k x;kA vc izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ;g prFkZ tkeur izkFkZuki= izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa izkFkhZ dh vksj ls ,slk dksbZ u;k rF; izdV ugha fd;k x;k] ftlls izkFkhZ dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkosA izkFkhZ ij vkjksfir vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, rFkk izkFkhZ ds f[kykQ yafcr 17 QkStnkjh eqdneksa ds yafcr gksus ds rF; dks e/;utj j[krs gq, bl izkFkZuki= esa dksbZ u;k rF;k izdV ugha fd;s tkus ls izkFkhZ dks tekur ij fjgk fd;k tkuk mi;qDr ugha le>rk gwaA vr% izkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr ;g prqFkZ tekur izkFkZuki= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk fujLrk fd;k tkrk gSA " 13. The trial Court rejected the bail application of the accused-petitioner vide order dated 22.3.2012 observed as under: " mHk;{k dks lqudj i=koyh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ lrq mQZ lR;izdk'k ds fo:) bl U;k;ky; eas mDr ls'ku izdj.k varxZr /kkjk 148] 149] 302] 201] 120&ch Hkk0n0lafgrk vUoh{kk/khu gSA bl rF; ij dksbZ fookn ugha gS fd iwoZ esa izkFkhZ dh vkSj ls izLrqr tekur vkosnu ls'ku U;k;ky; }kjk vkSj ekuoh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh fujLr fd;s tk pqds gSA fo}ku vf/koDrk izkFkhZ ds vuqlkj izkFkhZ ds fo:) i=koyh ij dksbZ lk{; ugha vk;k gS ijUrq bl LVst ij esjh fouez jk; esa lk{; dk xq.knks"k ds vk/kkj ij iw.kZ fo'ys"k.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk rFkk izdj.k vHkh lk{; LVst ij gSA izkFkhZ Hkk0n0la0 dh /kkjk 302 ds v/khu naMuh; xaHkhjre vijk/k dk vkjksi gS rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ,slk dksbZ ifjorZu ugha gqvk gS ftlds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ larq mQZ lR;izdk'k dks tekur dk gdnkj ekuk tk ldsaA gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa esjh fouez jk; esa fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls lanfHkZr fd;s x;s U;kf;d n'"Vkarks dks iw.kZ lEeku nsus gq;s ;s U;kf;d n'"Vkar izkFkhZ i{k dh bl LVst ij dksbZ enn ugha djrsA br% izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa] ifjfLFkfr;ksa ,oa vijk/k dh xaHkhjrk dks n'f"Vxr j[krs gq;s esa izkFkhZ lrq mQZ lR;izdk'k dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha le>rk gwaA " 14. Looking to the serious allegations of Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the accused-petitioner and as he is a habitual offender and there are 17 criminal cases registered against him, the accused-petitioner is not entitled for bail. The ruling cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to this case, in the facts and circumstances of this case. As submitted by the petitioner that out of 57 witnesses of the prosecution statements of 26 witnesses have been recorded, at this stage the trial Court can be directed to conclude the trial at the earliest. 15. In the result, this fifth bail application under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code is devoid of merit stands rejected. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest.Bail application dismissed. *******