Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 254 (RAJ)

Omprakash @ Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2025-02-10

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
Order : 1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.324/2024 registered at Police Station Nohar, Dist. Hanumangarh, for the offences under Sections 117(2), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that injured- Kaluram in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that on the date of the alleged incident, he along with the petitioner and the co- accused Omprakash @ Prakash Karela was sitting on the rooftop of the house of Omprakash and were drinking alcohol. As per the injured- Kaluram, suddenly a quarrel erupted between them whereupon petitioner and the co-accused Omprakash @ Prakash beat him up and threw him down from the roof due to which he sustained injuries which are grievous in nature and dangerous to life. 4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigating agency during the course of the investigation has not found the statements of the injured- Kaluram to be the correct version of the alleged incident and as per the investigating agency, on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner along with 2-3 other persons viz. Prakash, Rajveer, etc. blocked the way of the complainant when he was returning home and attacked him with sticks and inflicted various grievous and life threatening injuries upon his body parts including his vital body part i.e. his head. 5. Learned counsel submitted that the contradictions and variations in the story of the alleged incident as disclosed by the complainant in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as narrated by the investigating agency in the challan papers makes the prosecution case completely unreliable. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence of motive against the petitioner to commit the alleged crime; the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the trial against him is not likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, the petitioner who is in judicial custody deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. There is no evidence of motive against the petitioner to commit the alleged crime; the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the trial against him is not likely to be concluded in near future, therefore, the petitioner who is in judicial custody deserves to be enlarged on bail. 6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 7. Having considered the rival submissions, challan papers and facts and circumstances of this case, this Court prima facie finds that though the statements of the injured- Kaluram recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not match with the conclusion drawn by the investigating agency in the challan papers submitted by it before the competent criminal Court however, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the there is a specific allegation against the present petitioner that he had inflicted injuries upon the injured which are grievous in nature and dangerous to life. 8. This Court looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The petitioner however, shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statements of injured- Kaluram before the competent criminal Court. It is expected from the trial Court that the statements of the injured-Kaluram will be recorded on priority basis. 9. Consequently, the present bail application is rejected.