2017 Supreme(Raj) 2240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
SONU @ SURENDRA - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Appl. No. 6103 of 2017
Decided On : 08-05-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. K.L. Meena, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, Advocate.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 439 – Penal Code – Sections 147, 148, 149, 171-F, 188, 332, 353, 336, 427 – PDPP Act – Section 3 – Bail Application – Bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C – Held, During course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested – Thereafter the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Court below under Section 439 Cr.P.C, who vide detailed impugned order dismissed the bail application – Bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner.
Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J.
This bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 251/2014 was registered at PS-Mahuwa, Distt. Dausa for the offence/s under Sections 147, 148, 149, 171-F, 188, 332, 353, 336, 427 IPC and Section 3 of PDPP Act against the accused petitioner. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested. Thereafter the petitioner moved bail application before the learned Court below under Section 439 Cr.P.C, who vide detailed impugned order dismissed the bail application. Hence this bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner.
la{ksai esa izdj.k ds rF; bl izdkj gS fd ifjoknh xaxkjke gky mi fujh{kd us iqfyl Fkkuk egok ij ,d rgjhjh fjiksVZ bl vk'k; fd izLrqr dh fd og ny la[;k 870020452] 51oha okfguh Hkkjrh; frCcr lhek iqfyl esa dk;Zjr gSA vkt fnukad 24-4-14 dks og nkSlk ftys ds egok fo/kkulHkk {ks= esa ernku dasUnz jkt0 m0ek0 fo?kky; ds cwFk la[;k 155] 156] 157 ij viuh daeuh ds lSD'ku ds lkFk pquko M;wVh dj jgk Fkk fd fnu ds yxHkx lk<+s X;kjg cts ernku dsUnz ij LFkkuh; yksxksa dh HkhM+ us ernku ckf/kr djus ds mn~ns'; ls dsUnz esa ?kqlus dk iz;kl fd;k vkSj vpkud HkhM+ us iFkjko 'kq: dj fn;k vkSj HkhM+ us mxz :i /kkj.k dj fy;k vkSj okgu LdkfiZ;ksa ua0 vkj0ts0 14 ;w0lh0 1114 dks vkx ds gokys dj fn;k rFkk nks vU; okguksa dks Hkh iRFkj Qsad dj {kfrxzLr dj fn;kA iFkjko ls ,d toku ds pksV vkbZ o muds vU; okguksa vkj0ts0 34,&1017 o vkj0ts0 0208 VSEi0 5507 dks Hkh {kfrxzLr dj fn;kA le; 12-40 ih0,e0 ij igqaps Jh lTtu flag iqfyl mi v/kh{kd egok o gsesUnz 'kekZ Fkkukf/kdkjh egok ds okguksa ij Hkh minzfo;ksa us iFkjko fd;k] ftlls ,d toku ds pksV vk;h vkSj muds okgu {kfrxzLr gks x;sA lqj{kk cyksa }kjk HkhM+ dks [knsM+us ds fy, ykBh cy dk iz;ksx fd;k ,oa HkhM+ dks rhrj&chrj djus ds fy, vkf[kjh mik; ds :i esa fu;af=r gokbZ Qk;j fd;sA minzoh HkhM+ dk usr`Ro djus okys o iFkjko djus okys rFkk vkxtuh djus okys euh"k] iz/kku] gfj;k ehuk] fjadw] fot;] vt; iIiw] nsoh lgk;] Hkwj flag] egsUnz] lksuw] yksds'k] txeksgu] fctsUnz] eukst vkfn izeq[k Fks o buds vykok pkj lkS vU; yksx Fks] tks vkxtuh o iFkjko dj jgs FksA HkhM+ dks rhrj fcrj gks tkus ds i'pkr~ lqj{kk cyksa o iqfyl QkslZ vkSj ekSds ij igqaps iz'kklfud vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk 'kkafr LFkkfir dh xbZ vkSj iqu% ernku dsUnz ij ernku izkjEHk djk;k-------- vkfnA
mDr rgjhjh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij iqfyl Fkkuk egok ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la0 251@2014] vijk/k /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 171 ,Q 188] 336] 427] 332] 353 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk o /kkjk 3 ih0Mh0ih0ih0 ,DV ds v/khu n.Muh; vijk/k ds vkjksiks esa ntZ dj vuqla/kku fd;k x;kA fnukad 4-12-2014 dks izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 173 8 na0iz0la0 esa vuqla/kku iSf.aMx j[krs gq, vU; lg & vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) mDr /kkjkvksa ds vkjksi cuuk ik;s tkus ij vkjksi i= U;k;ky; vfr- eq[; U;kf;d eftLVzsV] egok ds le{k is'k fd;k x;k gSA vuqla/kku ls izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) /kkjk 147] 148] 149] 332] 353] 427] 171] ,Q 188] 336 Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk o /kkjk 3 ih0Mh0ih0ih0 ,DV ds vijk/k ds vkjksi cuuk ikbZ tkus ij mudks bl izdj.k esa fxjQ~rkj fd;k x;k] tks orZeku esa U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa gSaA
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime, there is no case made out against the petitioner. It is also contended that neither the petitioner has forcibly entered into the polling booth nor has pelted the stones upon the public or any of the Government Servant. It has also been contended that the petitioner has also neither created any hindrance in the election process nor obstructed in the work of any security or police during election proceedings. It is submitted that the petitioner is a social and political worker, other co-accused persons namely Lajji Ram, Lokesh, Pintu etc have been enlarged on bail and the case of the petitioner is on better footing, hence , the accused petitioner should be released on bail.
3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has o