Back
2007(2) Crimes 607 (Raj.)
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
J.R. Goyal, J.
Laxman Singh - Petitioner
versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2312 of 2007
Decided on 16-5-2007
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh Sharma.
For Complainant : Mr. R.P. Kuldeep, Public Prosecutor, Mr. Suresh Dhenwal for Mr. Praveen Balwada.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application in a case u/s 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC - In earlier trial two accused were acquitted whereas other accused were convicted but their sentence was suspended in appeal - Applicant - Accused was absconding and was arrested after lapse of about four years - In view of nature of offence, allegations levelled against accused-petitioner, it was not a fit case to grant bail to accused. (Paras 3 to 5)
Result : Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT
J.R. Goyal, J. - This bail application under S.439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the accused-petitioner in FIR No. 115/02 registered at Police Station Bansoor (Alwar) for the offence under S.147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for the complainant, perused the case diary and other documents produced during the course of arguments.
3. It was, inter alia, contended that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case on account of rivalry. It was also contended that the case of accused-petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Umrao and Chhitar, who have been acquitted by the trial court. It was further contended that the sentence awarded by the trial court to co-accused Sua Lal has been suspended by the Division Bench. It was then contended that Shimbhu Singh and Munshi Singh were examined twice in the trial court during trial against other co-accused persons wherein they have given contradictory statements, but in their first statement they have not stated anything against the accused-petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed that bail application contending, inter alia, that the accused-petitioner is an absconder and now after lapse of about four years from the incident, he could be apprehended. It was further contended that the accused-petitioner actively participated in this heinous crime. The deceased was brutally beaten to death. It was also contended that the case of accused-petitioner is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Sua Lal, Basanta, Jhaber, Ram Swaroop etc., who have been convicted for the offence under S. 302 read with S.149 IPC.
5. Without expressing any opinion on the merit, having considered the rival submissions made at the Bar, keeping in view the nature of offence, allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner and all other facts and circumstances, I do not deem it proper to grant bail to him.
6. In the result, this bail application is rejected.
Application dismissed.
**************
