Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1258 (RAJ)

Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-26

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No. 104/2018 of Police Station Falna, District Pali for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 459, 324, 325 and 307/34 IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner, statement of injured Ratan Lal has been recorded before the trial court as PW-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though injured Ratan Lal in his court statements has alleged that the petitioner inflicted a blow on his head by sharp edged weapon dhariya but as per the medical opinion, the said injury might be dangerous to life if not treated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, it is clear that the injury allegedly caused by the petitioner on the head of injured Ratan Lal was not fatal and he had no intention to kill him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from about ten months and all the other co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail and trial of the case will take time, therefore, the petitioner is also entitled to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that the allegation of inflicting grievous injury on the head of injured Ratan Lal is against the petitioner and injured PW-3 Ratan Lal has also affirmed the same allegation in his court statement. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that the recovery of sharp edged weapon dhariya is also from petitioner. It is argued that the allegations against all the other co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, are not so serious than against the petitioner and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of co-accused and the petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with the other co-accused persons. 5. It is argued that the allegations against all the other co-accused persons, who have already been enlarged on bail, are not so serious than against the petitioner and, therefore, the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from that of co-accused and the petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with the other co-accused persons. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.