IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH

O R D E R

S.B.Criminal Misc. Second Bail No. 15691/2016

1. Kedar S/o Holiram B/c Kushwah, R/o Village Satayan Ka Pura, Majra Kherli, Police Station Maniyan, Distt. Dholpur (at Present Confined in Distt. Jail Dhollpur)

2. Pappu @ Bhappu S/o Dundi B/c Kushwah, R/o Village Satayan Ka Pura, Majra Kherli, Police Station Maniyan, Distt. Dholpur (at Present Confined in Distt. Jail Dhollpur)

----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan Through PP ----Respondent DATE OF ORDER ::::: 02/01/2017 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Mr. Yogesh Singhal, for the petitioner/s.

Dr. NS Shekhawat, Public Prosecutor for State.

This second bail application has been filed under Section

439 Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No.325/2016 was registered at P.S. Maniyan, Dholpur for the offences mentioned therein against the accused petitioners. During the course of investigation, the accused petitioners were arrested. Thereafter they moved the bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 22.09.2016. Thereafter they moved the first bail application before this court which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh before the trial court after filing of challan vide order dated 4/10/2016. Thereafter they moved the bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 19.11.2016. Hence this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the offence against the petitioners is under sections 3/25 and 5/25 of Arms Act and the same is triable by first class Magistrate It has also been contended that the accused petitioners are in judicial lockup since long and the conclusion of trial of the case is likely to take time, hence the accused petitioners should be released on bail.

Learned PP opposed the bail application and contended that such type of offences are increasing day by day in the district of Dholpur in State of Rajasthan and the application filed by the petitioners u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C has been dismissed by trial court on 15/11/2016 hence the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material made available before me.

While dismissing the bail application of the petitioners, the trail court vide order dated 19/11/2016 observed as under:

”eSaus mHk;i{kdkju~ dh cgl lquh ,oa i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k ftlls izdV gksrk gS fd Fkkuk ekfu;kW ds iqfyl tkIrk dks voS/k gfFk;kj cukus dh lwpuk ik;s tkus ij le; 3-30 ih-,e- ij eq[kfcj ds crk;s Lfkku ij lr;iu ds iqjk dsnkj ds vMMk ij igqaps rks ,d >ksiMh esa nks O;fDr voS/k gfFk;kj cukrs gq, fn[kkbZ fn;s ftl ij ?ksjk nsdj nksuks O;fDr;ksa dks ekSds ij idMk x;k ftUgksaus vius uke dsnkj o iIiw mQZ HkIiw crk;sA pSd fd;k rks uhps tehu ij fcNh ,d IykfLVd dh f=iky ij ,d dV~Vk 315 cksj] ,d ikSuk 315 cksj o pkj [kkyh dsl dkjrwl ihry ds 315 cksj dsA ,d dkjrwl ftank 12 cksj rFkk nks v)ZfufeZr dV~Vs o gfFk;kj cukus ds midj.k fMªy e'khu] rhu ckad] ,d xkVj] ,d /kkSaduh] nks gFkkSMk] ,d Iykl laMklh] vkjh] jrs h] Vkadh] xqylu] ispd'k] cjek] ikap NksVh cMh fLizax] rhu iRrh yksgk] ,d cMh pn~nj yksgk] ,d ihry dk rkj] ikap cSjy 315 cksj dh] rhu cSjy 12 cksj dh] pkj ikbZi ds VqdMs ,d v)Z cuk dV~Vk dk cV yksgk] ,d ydMh dk cSaVk] nks dkB ydMh ds feysA mDr O;fDr;ksa ls dV~Vk] ikSuk o gfFk;kj cukus ds midj.k vius dCts esa j[kus ckcr~ ykbZlsal ekaxk rks dksbZ ykbZlasl gksuk ugha crk;k ftl ij mDr lkeku dks tCr fd;k o vfHk;qDrx.k dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k----bR;kfnA bl fjiksVZ ij Fkkuk efu;kW esa izkFkfedh la[;k 325@16 vUrxZr /kkjk 3@25] 5@25 vk;q/k vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathc) dh tkdj ckn vko';d vuqla/kku vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 3@25] 5@25 vkElZ ,DV ds rgr vfHk;ksx i= lacaf/kr U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k tk pqdk gSA vfHk;qDrx.k dks bl ekeys esa fnukad 13-09-16 dks fxjQ~rkj fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gS vkSj fopkj.k U;k;ky; esa fnukad 10-11-16 dks pkyku izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS blfy, p