Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1974 (RAJ)

Virendra @ Chunu v. State

2021-10-20

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT Vinit Kumar Mathur, J. - The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.29/2018, Police Station Hamirvas, District Churu for the offence under Sections 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second bail application was dismissed by this Court on 22.01.2020 with liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of Raghuveer Singh is recorded before the trial court. The statement of Raghuveer Singh has been recorded before the trial court as PW-10. He further submits that the testimony of PW-10 is not credible as in the cross-examination he stated that he had not gone to the police station on 25.02.2018 but on 26.02.2018. He further submits that he had not met Chhotu Ram prior to 26.02.2018 and therefore, there was no occasion for him to inform the first informant Mahaveer regarding the name of the petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the testimony of PW-10 is not worth credence as an evidence of last seen. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported by the counsel for the complainant submit that PW-10 in the examination-in-chief, has categorically stated that the petitioner was the person who was named by this witness having disembarked from the car along with other person on the date of occurrence. He further submits that this statement has not been diluted or testimony has not been discredited in the cross-examination by the petitioner. He further submits that recovery of the button was made from the vehicle in which the petitioner was last seen. He further submits that the dead body was also recovered on the information supplied by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the statement of PW-10 Raghuveer Singh. In his statement he submitted that on the date of incident, the petitioner was the person who was disembarked from the vehicle along with other persons. He further submits that he can identify the person who was accompanying the present petitioner. 5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the statement of PW-10 Raghuveer Singh. In his statement he submitted that on the date of incident, the petitioner was the person who was disembarked from the vehicle along with other persons. He further submits that he can identify the person who was accompanying the present petitioner. As far as the identification of the petitioner is concerned, he has categorically named the petitioner and therefore, the testimony of this witness as a last seen witness cannot be doubted. Besides this, the dead body was also recovered on the information supplied by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Evidence Act along with the fact that there is the recovery of the button from the same vehicle which is stated in his statement. 6. 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 at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the present third bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.