Back
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Mukesh Kumar Meena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Case Details: Second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner arrested in FIR No.577/2019 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323, 341 IPC, later including 325, 120-B IPC and Section 9/25 Arms Act. (!) [17000607730001]
Petitioner's Arguments: No prosecution witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C. alleges petitioner inflicted injuries on deceased or injured; incident at spur of moment without premeditation; post-mortem shows no head fracture, death due to hemorrhage, not supporting Section 302 IPC; custody over one year in sessions trial; charges framed post first bail rejection as change in circumstance.[17000607730001]
Prosecution Arguments: Petitioner absconded during investigation, leading to charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C.; active member of unlawful assembly causing death and grievous injuries in common object; has criminal record with new FIR during custody under Sections 323, 346, 504, 506, 34 IPC.[17000607730002]
Principle on Successive Bail Applications: Filing successive bail applications permissible but requires substantial change in circumstances; re-agitation of same grounds amounts to impermissible review; prior rejection by court binds later considerations unless material change in facts.[17000607730004][17000607730005][17000607730006][17000607730007] (!)
First Bail Application: Rejected on merits post charge-sheet after hearing parties based on material therein.[17000607730007]
Changes Claimed by Petitioner: Custody for over one year; framing of charges after first bail rejection.[17000607730008]
Court's View on Custody Period: Mere custody over one year in Section 302 IPC sessions trial not ground for bail, as offence carries death or life imprisonment and is heinous; no exceptional circumstances like prolonged unexplained delays; COVID-19 lockdowns affected court functioning.[17000607730009][17000607730014][17000607730015][17000607730016] (!) (!)
Court's View on Framing of Charges: Does not constitute substantial change; order frames charges including Section 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, strengthening prosecution case.[17000607730017]
Final Outcome: Second bail application dismissed.[17000607730018]
JUDGMENT
1. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.577/2019 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323 and 341 of I.P.C. later on for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 325, 450, 307, 302 and 120-B and challan for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 307, 302, 323, 325, 341 and 120-B of IPC and Section 9/25 of Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inviting attention of this Court towards the statements of prosecution witnesses namely; Narendra, Kailash and Subhanta Devi, recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses has levelled any allegation against the present petitioner of inflicting any injury on the person of deceased or other injured persons. Learned counsel submitted that contents of FIR reveal that the incident occurred at the spur of moment without any premeditation. He submitted that as per the post-mortem report of the deceased, he has suffered no fracture on his head i.e. vital part of the body and as per opinion of the Medical
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
