Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1569 (RAJ)

Sandeep @ Roliya v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-09

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 390/2012 registered at the Police Station, Ratangarh for the offences under Sections 364, 302 and 120-B I.P.C. 2. Mr. Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He contends that no prosecution witness states about the petitioner's presence with the deceased at any particular point of time. He further contends that even the call details which are sought to be relied upon by the prosecution do not implicate the petitioner. He contends that the prosecution has come out with a case that the petitioner contacted the co-accused Naveen and Sonu and they in turn contacted Anil @ Pandiya who is said to be the principal accused in the case. Learned counsel referring to the call details placed on record by the prosecution contends that as per the call details, the petitioner's first call to Naveen was made at 4.08 P.M. and thereafter no call was made by Naveen to the principal accused Anil @ Pandiya. Learned counsel further submits that for the first time, the schedule of the complainant's visit to the area came to the knowledge of the accused Manohar after 1.30 in the after noon. He contends that no such telephone call is attributed to the petitioner by which he can be linked with the principal accused. He submits that even by the fact that the petitioner's calls are linked to the co-accused Naveen no criminality can be attached to the act. He further contends that the case of the present petitioner is different from that of the co-accused Sandeep Gujar whose bail application has been rejected by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused Naveen has been arrested in the matter. He contends that the petitioner thus deserves to be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Dashrath Singh, I.O. and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner took the aid of the co-accused Naveen and the co-accused Sonu in making a link with the principal accused Anil @ Pandiya. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr. Dashrath Singh, I.O. and the learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner took the aid of the co-accused Naveen and the co-accused Sonu in making a link with the principal accused Anil @ Pandiya. They thus pray that the petitioner's case not being different from that of the co-accused Sandeep Gujar, the petitioner is also not entitled to be released on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the factual report submitted by the I.O. The call details of the various accused persons have been filed on record along with a chart showing the various calls made inter se between the accused. It is admitted case of the prosecution as per the statement of the first informant Ashok Kumar that the proposed visit of the deceased to Salasar Toll Road from where he is alleged to be abducted firstly came to light at 1.30 in the afternoon of 14.11.2012. Thus, any calls made inter se between the accused before that point of lime are hardly of any significance to the prosecution case. It is admitted case by the material available on record that the petitioner's presence is at best alleged to be in the field of Pradeep Sharma along with other co-accused persons. No witness examined during the investigation has deposed that the deceased came to the said field while the present petitioner was present there. It is significant to note that none of the prosecution witnesses alleged that the principal accused viz. Sharvan, Manohar and Anil brought the deceased to the field of Pradeep Sharma while the petitioner was present there. The call details which have been made basis of the petitioner's implication in the case show that the petitioner contacted the co-accused Naveen and the co-accused Sonu after 4.08 P.M. on 14.11.2012. As per the call details of the co-accused Naveen, he did not put a single call to the principal accused Anil after 3.13 P.M. on 14.11.2012. Thus, the prosecution theory regarding the petitioner having made the co-accused Sonu and Naveen to be the conduit for contacting with the principal accused Anil @ Pandiya is doubtful. Be that as it may. As per the call details of the co-accused Naveen, he did not put a single call to the principal accused Anil after 3.13 P.M. on 14.11.2012. Thus, the prosecution theory regarding the petitioner having made the co-accused Sonu and Naveen to be the conduit for contacting with the principal accused Anil @ Pandiya is doubtful. Be that as it may. Under the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the present petitioner's case stands on a different footing from the case of the co-accused Sandeep Gujar whose bail application was rejected previously by this Court. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sandeep @ Roliya S/o Sheotaj, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 390/2012, Police Station, Ratangarh, Distt. Churu shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sound and solvent sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.Bail application allowed. *******