Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1169 (RAJ)

Najam Singh v. State, Through PP

2019-04-16

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioners have been arrested in FIR No. 46/2018 of Police Station Sameja Kothi, District Sriganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 304, 308, 325, 323, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the first bail application of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated 13.02.2019 against which the petitioners had approached Honble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal No. 2651/2019 which was disposed of by the Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 02.04.2019 while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach High Court and point out the circumstances warranting releasing of the petitioners on the ground of parity. 4. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely Darbara Singh, Mangi Lal and Jhanda Singh have already been enlarged on bail and case of the petitioners is not distinguishable from those accused persons, therefore, petitioners are also entitled to be enlarged on bail. It is submitted that most of the important witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is submitted that the injured witness PW-8 Jasvir Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2018 has specifically named co-accused Jhanda Singh while alleging that he had deliberately dashed the motorcycle, on which he and the deceased Dharmpal were going on, by the jeep bearing No. RJ-01C2136. 5. It is submitted that co-accused Jhanda Singh has already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the petitioners are also entitled to be released on bail because PW-8 Jasvir Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has not stated that petitioner-Ranjeet Singh was in the jeep driven by co-accused Jhanda Singh and he has only stated that when Jhanda Singh had dashed the motorcycle by the said jeep, Nazam Singh and Mangi Lal were sitting in the jeep. 6. It is submitted that the complainant PW-7 Bhagwan Singh is not the eye-witness of the alleged incident and his evidence is only hear-say and is not sufficient to prove the involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime. 6. It is submitted that the complainant PW-7 Bhagwan Singh is not the eye-witness of the alleged incident and his evidence is only hear-say and is not sufficient to prove the involvement of the petitioners in commission of crime. It is therefore prayed that petitioners be enlarged on bail as their case is similar to the case of co-accused Jhanda Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and argued that from the court statement of PW-8 Jasvir Singh, it is clear that at the time when the jeep had dashed the motorcycle on which he and the deceased were going on, the petitioners were present in the said jeep and looking to this piece of evidence, it is prima facie proved that the petitioners are the persons who had dashed the motorcycle, on which deceased and the injured were traveling, by the jeep. It is also submitted that the case of the petitioners is different from co accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, particularly Jhanda Singh because injured PW-8 had not named Jhanda Singh in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as well as in his court statement. It is therefore prayed that the bail application of the petitioner be rejected. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the charge-sheet as well as the statement of injured witness. 9. It is true that PW-8 Jasvir Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.04.2018 has alleged that the jeep which dashed the motorcycle, on which he and the deceased were going on, was driven by Jhanda Singh, in which, Nazam Singh and Mangilal were also sitting, however, the statement of said witness was recorded by the police under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 02.05.2018 before the concerned Magistrate, wherein he has specifically alleged that the jeep which dashed the motorcycle, on which he and the deceased were going on, was driven by Nazam Singh and Ranjeet Singh. PW-8 Jasvir Singh in his court statement has also specifically stated that the jeep which dashed the motorcycle was driven by the petitioners and he has not named Jhanda Singh in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or in his court statement. PW-8 Jasvir Singh in his court statement has also specifically stated that the jeep which dashed the motorcycle was driven by the petitioners and he has not named Jhanda Singh in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. or in his court statement. In the cross-examination also, the said witness has not deviated from his statement-in-chief and has not given any statement contrary to his statement that the jeep which dashed the motorcycle, on which he and the deceased were going on, was driven by the petitioners and taking into consideration the said piece of evidence, it is clear that case of the petitioners is distinguishable from those co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail. 10. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 11. Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.