Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2251 (RAJ)

Ravindra Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2017-10-26

P.K.LOHRA

body2017
ORDER : P.K. Lohra, J. 1. Apprehended in furtherance to investigation into FIR No. 4/17 registered with Police Station Sojat Road, District Pali for alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323, 324, 342, 364, 364-A, 368, 201 and 120-B IPC, petitioners Ravindra Singh and Prakash have preferred these separate bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 1973. 2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet in the matter has been filed against both the petitioners and 9 other accused persons. 3. As the genesis of both the bail applications is aforementioned FIR, they are heard together and disposed of by a common order. Submissions of Learned Counsels for the Petitioners: Learned counsels for the petitioners would contend that both of them are falsely implicated in the matter inasmuch as their names did not find mention in the FIR. Learned counsels have urged in unison that electronic evidence, i.e. video clippings of crime scene, is also not showing involvement of both the petitioners. Learned counsels for the petitioners contended that if the prosecution case against them is tested in legal parlance, on the touchstone of circumstantial evidence, then it would ipso facto reveal that complete chain of evidence is conspicuously missing. Elaborating their arguments in this behalf, learned counsels submit that there is no incriminating recovery from both the petitioners. While referring to the statements of two witnesses; viz. Nema Ram and Mangla Ram, it is submitted by learned counsels that their statements are not inspiring confidence as both these statements are recorded by police 20 days posterior to the incident. It is further submitted by learned counsels that so called ocular witness, Ms. Varsha, in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 1973 has neither whispered anything against the petitioners nor named them for commission of alleged offences. Lastly, learned counsels have contended that co-accused Jabbar Puri has been enlarged on bail while disposing of his bail Application No. 9106/2017 vide order dated 13th of October 2017 and case of the petitioners is on par with the co-accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Deepak Choudhary has vehemently opposed both the bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that witness Ms. Varsha has named both the petitioners in her police statement and other incriminating evidence is also against them for nixing both the bail applications. 5. Mr. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Deepak Choudhary has vehemently opposed both the bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that witness Ms. Varsha has named both the petitioners in her police statement and other incriminating evidence is also against them for nixing both the bail applications. 5. Mr. Ravindra Acharya, learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously urged that, looking to the seriousness of offences with which the petitioners are charged, their bail applications are liable to be thwarted. Learned counsel for the complainant has further urged that naming both the petitioners by witnesses Nema Ram and Mangla Ram, so as to show their involvement in commission of offence, cannot be underplayed while considering their bail applications. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the materials available on record. 7. Having regard to the facts of the case and taking into account totality of circumstances, I am afraid, case of both the petitioners is not distinguishable from co-accused Jabbar Puri, who has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench. 8. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners are not named in the FIR and no incriminating material is recovered from them. That apart, the police statement of witness Ms. Varsha and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 1973 have visible inconsistencies. A very significant fact that in juxtaposition to the statement of first informant/complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 1973 she has not revealed names of both the petitioners in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 1973 cannot lose sight of the Court even at this stage. 9. In view of foregoing discussion, while refraining to make any comment on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept both these applications. 10. Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 1973 are allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioners, (1) Ravindra Singh S/o Dalpat Singh and (2) Prakash S/o Sh. Deeparam, arrested in connection with FIR No. 4/17 registered with Police Station Sojat Road, District Pali, may be released on bail; provided each one of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 11. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 11. Bail Application Allowed as Above.