High Court allowed a second bail application filed by an accused challenging a previous dismissal order, citing lack of specific role allocation in witness statements and absence at the crime scene.
Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.12567/2022
Ravindra Singh Son Of Karani Singh, Resident Of Khudiya, Police Station Mandrela, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At present confined in District Jail Jhunjhunu)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rishi Raj, Adv. Mr.Anil Kumar Upman, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Laxman Meena, Public Prosecutor.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
14/09/2022
This misc. second bail application has been filed by the petitioner as the first bail application was dismissed by this Court on 17.01.2022 with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh after examination of Doctor and the main witnesses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that statement of father of the deceased i.e. Vijay Pal has been recorded as PW-2.
Learned counsel submitted that in the statement of father of the deceased, he has not assigned any role to the present accused petitioner in commission of crime and even the allegation of causing any injury so also presence of the present petitioner on the scene of crime, do not come forward in the entire statement recorded before the Trial Court.
(2 of 4)
[CRLMB-12567/2022]
Learned counsel further submitted that statement of the Medical Officer – Doctor has also been recorded as PW-1 and even the statement of Doctor does not make out a case of commission of crime under Section 302 IPC against the present petitioner.
Learned counsel submitted that cross-examination of the Doctor (PW-1) also supports theory of other witnesses that deceased died due to accident but not on account of any injury sustained by him.
Learned counsel further submitted that father of the deceased i.e. Vijay Pal in his statement referred to, two witnesses namely Kuldeep and Charan Singh, who are said to have informed him about the alleged incident on the next day.
Learned counsel submitted that even the statement of these two witnesses recorded by the Police during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not show presence of the present accused petitioner on the site of occurrence.
Learned counsel submitted that father of the deceased has only stated that the petitioner owns a medical shop and no other allegation is levelled against him.
Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of over implication and the petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2021 and he is not required for any other investigation purpose.
Learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor Mr.Laxman Meena has opposed the second bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation done by the Police clearly assign role of the present accused petitioner and only on account of statement of father of
(3 of 4)
[CRLMB-12567/2022]
deceased, it would not be inferred, at this stage, that the petitioner was not involved in commission of crime.
Learned counsel submitted that there are other
witnesses also, who have been examined by the Police during investigation and they also assigned role of the present petitioner in commission of crime.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor.
This Court, prima-facie, notices the following features in the present case, as under:-
(i) The statement of father of the deceased (PW-2) Vijay Pal does not specifically assign any role to the accused petitioner in commission of crime and he is only said to be running a medical shop.
(ii) The other two witnesses during investigation by Police Kuldeep and Charan Singh, who are said to have given information to the father of the petitioner also showed absence of accused petitioner at the time of alleged commission of crime.
(iii) The petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2021 and trial of the case may take considerable time.
This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.
(4 of 4)
[CRLMB-12567/2022]
Accordingly, the present second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accusedpetitioner Ravindra Singh Son Of Karani Singh shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- along with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J
Himanshu Soni/23
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused petitioner should be released on bail in the second bail application given that the initial bail was dismissed with liberty to file fresh upon medical examination.
Whether the investigation statements indicate the presence or involvement of the petitioner in the alleged crime of murder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Singh Son Of Karani Singh
The State of Rajasthan
Ashok Kumar Gaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
