Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 320 (RAJ)

Kailash Manju v. State of Rajasthan

2020-02-04

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2020
DECISION : Vijay Bishnoi, J. 1. The petitioner(s) has/have been arrested in FIR No. 158/2017 of Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 307, 120-B IPC and Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. He/she/they has/have preferred this/these third bail application(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, two prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court. It is further submitted that as per the prosecution story, on the basis of 'parcha-bayan' of Dinesh Bhambani (PW-1), the police registered FIR No. 158/2017 at Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act. In the said FIR, it is alleged that when the complainant was standing in the parking of a mall, five persons came there and one of them fired a gun shot hit to his back. The complainant immediately reached the hospital, where the police recorded his statements i.e. 'parcha-bayan' (Ex. P/1). In the said 'parcha-bayan', the complainant has alleged that five persons namely Shamsher Khan, Bayaan Khan, Raja Khan, Aabid Khan and Taujit Khan came on a motorcycle and one of them fired gun shot with the intention to kill him. Later on, the police recorded statements of brother of the complainant namely Girish Bhambani (PW-2), who has stated that his brother is having old enmity with Chandra Prakash @ Papita and Kailash Manju's gang and there is all possibility that either those persons or Shamsher Khan, who earlier threatened complainant's brother might have managed the said attack. During the course of investigation, the police arrested co-accused Rakesh Manju and Ramniwas and during the course of interrogation, they informed that on the instructions of the petitioner, they carried out the attack on the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thereafter the police arrested the petitioner and claimed that in the interrogation note, he has admitted that on his instructions, attack on the complainant was carried out. It is further submitted that now, statements of the injured Dinesh Bhambani (PW-1) and his brother Girish Bhambani (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court wherein, they have simply stated that they had doubt that the attack on the complainant was carried out on the instructions of the petitioner. It is further submitted that now, statements of the injured Dinesh Bhambani (PW-1) and his brother Girish Bhambani (PW-2) have been recorded before the trial court wherein, they have simply stated that they had doubt that the attack on the complainant was carried out on the instructions of the petitioner. It is submitted that except the said piece of evidence, no other evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner, two more prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and from their evidence also, it can be gathered that there is no cogent and reliable evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 26.12.2018 and till date, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court and as trial of the case is likely to take time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that no such substantial change took place after rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is also guilty of threatening the complainant for not giving any evidence against him just before the day when for the first time, his statements were scheduled to be recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that in the said complaint, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted. It is further submitted that thereafter the petitioner again carried out the attack on the house of the complainant and in that case also, charge-sheet has been filed against him. However, learned counsel for the complainant has frankly admitted that in the case of threatening, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court, however, in the case, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for getting the attack carried out on the house of the complainant, his bail has been rejected up to this Court. However, learned counsel for the complainant has frankly admitted that in the case of threatening, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the trial court, however, in the case, the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for getting the attack carried out on the house of the complainant, his bail has been rejected up to this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner is having a criminal history and dozens of cases are pending against him and there is all possibility that if he is enlarged on bail, he may indulge in similar type of activities and there is all possibility that the complainant may be further harassed by the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Though, the complainant and his brother (PW-1) and (PW-2) respectively, in their statements before the trial court, have stated that the petitioner had earlier threatened them on telephone with dire consequences, however, at the same time, the complainant (PW-1) in his statements has categorically admitted that since 2016, he had not seen the petitioner or had any talk with him. So far as the claim of the petitioner that he has falsely been implicated by the police in the present case is concerned, the trial court will take into consideration the same after analyzing the evidence produced by the prosecution. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody from December, 2018 and till date, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined and trial of the case is likely to take time, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the petitioner(s) under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this/these third bail application(s) filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is/are allowed and it is directed that petitioner(s) - Kailash Manju S/o. Shri Ram Chandra shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 158/2017 of Police Station Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur provided he/she/they execute(s) a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his/her/their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.