The court held that it was not the right time to grant bail to the petitioner, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.440/2014 registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’).

3. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, on 31.12.2014, Mangilal and his wife, Smt.Kamla were murdered at their dhani situated in the agricultural land of Chak 1 K.S.P. An FIR, in respect of the said murder, was lodged by their son, namely, Vishnudutt on 31.12.2014 at about 8:15 p.m. with the SHO, Police Station Tibbi, and the same was registered as FIR No.440/2014 for the offences under Section 449 and 302 IPC.

4. The investigation commenced, and thereafter, chargesheets were filed against the other accused persons, but investigation against the present petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. reflecting absconding of the petitioner. However, finally, a charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.04.2019 against the present petitioner, and thereafter, when the present petitioner surrendered before the learned court below on 12.07.2019, a supplementary chargesheet No.79G dated 17.08.2019 was filed against him. The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2019.

5. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the stages when the charge-sheets were filed, and has tried to demonstrate from the record that while the conclusions were drawn against all the other co-accused, the investigation was kept pending against the present petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court towards the statements of Surendra, Sandeep, Pankaj, Ramswaroop and Ashwini Kumar, and has tried to indicate that the complete evidence was based on surmises and conjectures or hearsay, and that, there was no direct evidence against the present petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the other co-accused have already been released on bail, and in this regard, has shown to this Court the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4264/2018 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan).

8. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Sudhir Saruparia and Mr. Vipul Dharnia, learned counsels for the complainant, while opposing the bail application, have submitted that at all times, the investigation was being made upon the present petitioner, who was the main accused, as the land in question measuring 53 bighas, on which the murdered couple were residing and doing agricultural activity, was recorded in the name of present petitioner Vinod Kumar, and that, he claimed to be the owner of the said land.

Learned counsels further submitted that though the murdered couple as well as the present petitioner were relatives, but there was continuous dispute regarding possession of the land in question, and thus, it was strongly reflected that present petitioner Vinod Kumar would have been involved in the act in question.

Learned counsels have also shown this Court the statement of Roshni, Renu and Santosh, in which they have deposed that previously also, there was an altercation regarding the land in question between the family members of the deceased couple and present petitioner Vinod Kumar, and that, the present petitioner was behind such dispute.

Learned counsels also submitted that the land in question was to be changed to the name of the family of the murdered couple, but present petitioner Vinod Kumar was hesitating in doing so, and inspite of time and again assuring that he would hand over the land, he was not enabling to get recording of the necessary entries in respect of the said land done.

9. After hearing lea