SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Raj) 1740

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J.
Lokendra and others - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and another - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application Nos. 2318, 5287 of 2014 With S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 2319 of 2014.
Decided On : 26-09-2014

For the Petitioners:Azad Ahmed and Pradeep Choudhary, Advocates.
For the C.B.I.: Tej Prakash Sharma, Special Public Prosecutor.
For the State: Anil Yadav, Public Prosecutor.
For the Complainant:T.L. Pandey, Advocate.

A supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI does not supersede the charge-sheet filed by the State Police, and the trial is to be conducted on the basis of both the charge-sheets.

Headnote:

BAIL - SECTION 439 CR.P.C. - FIR NO. 425/2012 - OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 307 AND 302 IPC - SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGE-SHEET FILED BY CBI - NO CASE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS - BAIL GRANTED.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were accused of offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 307 and 302 IPC. The State Police filed a charge-sheet against them, and the case was committed to the Sessions Judge for trial. However, the CBI filed a supplementary charge-sheet finding no involvement of the petitioners in the incident.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case to allow the bail applications. The court noted that the CBI's conclusion was not final and that the trial was to be conducted on the basis of both the charge-sheets.

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail in light of the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI finding no involvement of the petitioners in the incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI did not supersede the charge-sheet filed by the State Police and that the trial was to be conducted on the basis of both the charge-sheets. The court also noted that the evidence collected by the State Police, which had already been considered by the court, transpired the involvement of the petitioners.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the bail applications.

JUDGMENT

1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The accused-petitioners Lokendra and Situ @ Bhagwan Sahay have filed second applications whereas accused-petitioner Darab Singh has filed third application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in respect of FIR No. 425/2012 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 307 and 302 IPC.

3. The first application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of each of the accused-petitioners was dismissed by this Court vide a reasoned and common order dated 22.5.2013 alongwith the bail applications filed by other accused. The second application for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner Shri Darab Singh was dismissed by this Court vide a reasoned order dated 23.8.2013. All the aforesaid previous bail applications filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners were considered and dismissed by this Court before supplementary charge-sheet was filed by CBI in pursuance of the investigation done by it in compliance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court. It is to be noted that the FIR was registered for the aforesaid offences at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur and after investigation charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioners and some other accused after Coordinate Bench of this High Court permitted the State Police to file charge-sheet in respect of the aforesaid FIR. It is also to be noted that since then the cognisance was taken by the concerned Magistrate against the accused-petitioners and the case was committed to the concerned Sessions Judge for further proceedings. It is also pertinent to note that after investigation, CBI filed supplementary charge-sheet and it was found by it that all the three present accused-petitioners were not involved in the said incident and no case is made out against them. After investigation, the supplementary charge-sheet has been filed by CBI against some other persons including one Shri Deep Chand @ Deepu and Shri Mukesh Meena for the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34, 307 and 201 IPC. In these circumstances, the present applications for grant of bail have been filed. As all the present applications arise out of the same FIR, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same were heard together and are being decided by this common order. Copy of the order may be placed on each of the file.

4. In support of the applications, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted as below:

(i) Although, the State Police filed charge-sheet against the present petitioners for the offence, apart from others, under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC also and after taking cognisance in the case the same has been committed for trial to the concerned Sessions Judge, but in compliance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court in a writ petition, further/reinvestigation was undertaken by the CBI and after investigation supplementary charge-sheet has been filed in the case, but it has been clearly found by the CBI that present petitioners were not at all involved in the incident and no case is made out against them and, therefore, in the changed circumstances the petitioners are now entitled to be released on bail.

(ii) After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet against one Shri Mukesh Meena also for the offence under Section 302 read with Sections 34, 307 and 201 IPC and benefit of bail has been accorded to him by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 12.9.2014 passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2721/2014 whereas the case of the present petitioners is now on a better footing by the reason that the CBI has found no case against them after investigation.

(iii) Although, the supplementary charge-sheet filed by the CBI cannot legally supersede the charge-sheet already filed by the State Police against the petitioners, but for considerin


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top