The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the second bail application filed by the petitioner charged with murder. The court held that the evidence indicated clear involvement and denied bail, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Bail application dismissed; trial directed to be concluded expeditiously.
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.
[2023/RJJD/015235]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2065/2023
Manga Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Aged About 23 Years, B/c Ramgarhiya, R/o Prempura, Teh. Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Prakash Chandra. |
|---|---|---|
| Ms | Ruchika. | |
| Mr. | Mahboob. | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Laxman Solanki, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
15/05/2023
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.574/2018, Police Station Pilibanga District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
After rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner by this court, 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial court including PW3 Champa Devi.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. He vehemently
[2023/RJJD/015235]
[CRLMB-2065/2023]
(2 of 3)
submits that there is no clinching evidence against the petitioner in the present case. It is also contended that co-accused Mamta has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this court, therefore, the case of the present petitioner is similar to coaccused Mamta who has already been enlarged on bail. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in the statement of PW3 Champa Devi, it has come on record that the petitioner along with Mamta had taken away Shrawan Delu on motorcycle and thereafter, whereabouts of Shrawan Delu were not found and he went missing. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is clinching evidence against the present petitioner in the shape of PW3 Champa Devi. He further submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of co-accused Mamta on account of the fact that Mamta was enlarged on bail considering the fact that she is a woman having two children. He, therefore, prays that the bail application filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the relevant record of the case.
It is true that co-accused Mamta has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of this court but she has been enlarged on bail on account of the fact that she was a woman whereas in the present case, involvement of the petitioner is clearly borne out as in the statement of PW3 Champa Devi, it has come on record that Shrawan Delu was taken on motorcycle by the present petitioner and thereafter, he was fond missing. Ultimately, dead body of
[2023/RJJD/015235]
[CRLMB-2065/2023]
(3 of 3)
Shrawan Delu was recovered. Therefore, involvement of the petitioner in the present set of facts is clearly borne out from the evidence produced before the trial court.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the second application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
However, considering the fact that that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 14 witnesses have been examined before the trial court, the trial court is directed to expedite the proceeding of recording the statements of rest of the witnesses and conclude the trial proceedings at its earliest convenience.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
103-AnilSingh/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with murder given the evidence against him and the gravity of the offence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manga Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Vinit Kumar Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
