Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 740 (RAJ)

Om Prakesh @ Chotu v. State of Rajasthan

2012-03-26

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. third bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The second bail application of the accused-petitioner was rejected by this Court on 4.1.2012 and it was observed by this Court that if the complainant does not appear before the trial Court on three consecutive dates, then the accused-petitioner would be free to move bail application before the trial Court and the trial Court will decide the bail application looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. When the complainant does not appear before the trial Court for consecutive three dates i.e. on 25.2.2012, 3.3.2012 and 12.3.2012 the accused-petitioner filed fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge and the Additional Sessions Judge on 16.3.2012 rejected the bail application of the petitioner by a detailed order. Now the present 3rd bail application has been filed for releasing him under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his third bail application has submitted that the complainant did not appear before the trial Court on three consecutive dates as such it is clear that the complainant is lingering on the trial and in these circumstances the accused-petitioner should be granted bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It was further submitted by the counsel that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner and nothing has been recovered from him. The offence alleged against the accused-petitioner is triable by Magistrate, hence it was requested that the petitioner be granted bail. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has contended that the trial Court has rightly rejected the fresh bail application by a detailed order. There are serious allegations against the accused-petitioner that he was with the main accused while committing the offence. There is cogent reason for rejecting his bail application. It is true that the complainant did not appear on three consecutive days, but at the same it is also true that the bail application of the accused-petitioner was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge by a detailed reasoned order. Hence it was prayed that the bail application should be rejected at this stage. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record including the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur dated 16.3.2012.In the order dated 16.3.3012 the Addl. Hence it was prayed that the bail application should be rejected at this stage. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record including the order of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 5 Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur dated 16.3.2012.In the order dated 16.3.3012 the Addl. Sessions Judge observed as under: " esajs }kjk mDr fcUnq ij mHk;i{k dh cgtl ij euu fd;k x;k o fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ku; dh i=koyh dk/;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;k tgka rd izdj.k ds xq.k voxq.k dk iz'u gS iwj.k lksuh us vius iqfyl c;kuksa esa bl vk'k; ds dFku fd;s gS fd mls lksuk cspuk Fkk v'kksdth us eq>s mij ftrsUnz 'kekZ dh xn~nh ij Hkst fn;k vkSj mls Qksu ij dj fn;k fd iwj.k th 1@2 fdyks xksYM cspus vk jgs gS ftrsUnz th dh xn~nh ij x;k rks ogka ftrsUnz mldk firk lksgu yky o muds dke djus okyk NksVw Hkh ogha Fkh eSaus ftrsUnz dks tkdj lksuk ns fn;k mlus rksy fd;k o crk;k fd : 11-25 yk[k cSad ls iSls ykdj ns nwaxkA eSaus v'kksd th dks crk fn;k fd lksuk esa ftrsUnz dks ns vk;k gwa vkSj fdlh nwljs dke ls pyk x;k vkSj fQj eSa rhu cts vk x;k vkSj ftrsUnz th xn~nh ij x;k----------- fQj 5-30 cts ftrsUnz th dh xn~nh ij x;s rks ftrsUnz ds firk lksgu yky vdsys gh cSBs Fks ftUgksaus crk;k fd ftrsUnz o ukSdj NksVw nksuksa lksuk o :i;s ysdj fcuk crk;s dgha pys x;s gSSA vr% mijksDr xokg ds dFkuksa ls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkse izdk'k mQZ NksVw }kjk eq[; vfHk;qDr ftrsUnz ds lkFk lksuk ysdj Qjkj gksuk izFke n'"V;k :i esa nf'kZr gksrk gSA blds vykok vU; xokg jktey dk dFku gS fd mlus ftrsUnz dks N% yk[k :i;s lksuk [kjhnus ds fy, fn;s Fks] xokg vk'kh"k 'kekZ dk dFku gS fd mlus v'kksd dks ,d fdyks lksuk fn;k FkkA v'kksd us mls crk;k fd mijksDr lksuk ftrsUnz us v'kksd dks ns nwaxk vkSj iSls vkidks ns nwaxkA v'kksd th us crk;k fd mijksDr lksuk ftrsUnz us v'kksd dks ns fn;k ijUrq og dkQh yksxksa ds :i;s ysdj vius cki o HkkbZ rFkk ukSdj NksVw mQZ vkseizdk'k ds lkFk Qjkj gks x;k gSA izFke n'"V;k :i ls ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr vkseizdk'k mQZ NksVw lg vfHk;qDrx.k ftrsUnz ds lkFk dkQh vf/kd ek=k esa udnh jde o lksus ds lkFk Qjkj gks x;k Fkk ;|fi fo}ku~ fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds le{k yxkrkj rhu ckj ifjoknh lk{; gsrq mifLFkr ugha vk;k gS ijUrq ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius vkns'k esa ;g funsZ'k fn;k gS] bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dk ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dk tekur dk izkFkZuk i= dk fuLrkj.k djsaxsA mijksDr izdj.k ds rF; o ifjfLFkfr;ksa ls izFke n'"V;k :i esa ;g nf'kZr gksrk gS fd izkFkhZ lg vfHk;qDr ftrsUnz ds lkFk Hkkjh ek=k esa lksuk o udnh jde ysdj Qjkj gks x;k FkkA vr% izdj.k dh xaHkhjrk dks ns[krs gq, eSa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk nsuk mfpr ugha le>rk gawA " The Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Jaipur called for the trial Court record and after considering the record of the trial Court based on the statements of the complainant and other persons on record found that the accused-petitioner was associated with the main accused and hence the trial Court observing that he was involved in the case the accused-petitioner was not granted bail by the Addl. Sessions Judge. I have also gone through the reasoning given by the Addl. Sessions Judge and since there are serious allegations against the accused-petitioner he is not entitled to be released on bail at this stage. It is true that on three occasions as ordered by this Court the complainant did not appear. The reasons for not appearance by the complainant was not produced before the Addl. Sessions Judge and before this Court and in these circumstances only saying that the complainant did not appear before the trial Court for recording his statement particularly when there are serious allegations of his involvement in the crime cannot be doubted, the third bail application filed by him deserves to be rejected at this stage. At this stage, the trial Court is directed to first record the statement of the complainant and the witnesses related to the crime as early as possible. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, this third bail application filed by the accused-petitioner is rejected. The accused-petitioner shall be at liberty to move fresh bail application before the Additional Sessions Judge after recording the statements of the complainant and other related important witnesses.Third bail application rejected. *******