Amit Kumar vs State of Rajasthan

The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R.

No. 440/2014, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 302, 449 & 120-B of I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on

record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the third bail application of the petitioner on 08.01.2019, the charges have been

framed by the trial court by a detailed Order dated 09.12.2019. He further submits that in the Order dated 09.12.2019 passed by the trial court, the

entire evidence has been analyzed before framing of the charges against the petitioner. He further submits that as per the said Order dated

09.12.2019, five persons, namely, Kuldeep Singh alias Gabbar, Rajveer alias Rajendra alias Raju, Manpreet alias Manna, Jitendra Midhdha and Vijay

Kumar have been discharged of the offences under Sections 449, 302/34 & 120-B of I.P.C. He further submits that there is no evidence on record

which shows the involvement of the present petitioner in the commission of alleged offences except the fact that a party was held on 31.12.2014 at

the Dhani/ house of the present petitioner, which is located at about 4 kms. away from the place of incident. The allegation that the petitioner was a

key conspirator in the present case is not proved from the evidence which is collected during the course of investigation. He, therefore, prays that the

present petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor supported by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application and submit that there is

no change in the circumstances after rejection of the third bail application of the petitioner on 08.01.2019. It is further submitted that the present

petitioner was the key conspirator in the matter as he was the person, who introduced the principal offenders to Vinod who is the actual beneficiary in

the whole transaction. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh

Kumar @ Polia & anr. reported in 2020 (1) CJ(Cri.) (SC) 93 wherein it is held that when there is no change in the circumstances, normally, the bail

application after rejection of the first or second bail application should not be entertained.

I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar.

On being pointedly asked about the evidence available on record to show the petitioner’s involvement in the conspiracy, learned Public Prosecutor

as well as learned counsel for the complainant could not point out the same from the record. Further, in the present case, except the allegation of

hosting a party at the house/Dhani of the present petitioner on 31.12.2014, there is no evidence on record which shows the direct involvement of the

present petitioner in the commission of the offences alleged in the instant case and nor in the conspiracy which has been hatched by the principal

offenders. Further, the trial court after due application of mind and appreciation of entire evidence on record has passed the order framing charges

against the petitioner on 09.12.2019, which also shows that the persons who were present at the place of incident on the date of hosting the party by

the present petitioner i.e. Kuldeep Singh alias Gabbar, Rajveer alias Rajendra alias Raju, Manpreet alias Manna, Jitendra Midhdha and Vijay Kumar

have already been discharged. Therefore, this cannot be the sole ground to implicate the present petitioner in the present case merely because he

hosted a party at his house/Dhani on 31.12.2014. For substantiating the allegation of conspiracy against the present petitioner, there is no material

worth the name in the present case to bring the case of the present petitioner under the net of Section 120-B of I.P.C. So far as the judgment relied

upon by the learned counsel for the complainant is concerned, the same is not applicable in the facts of the present case as after rejection of the third

bail application in the present case, a detailed order framing charges against the petitioner has been passed on 09.12.2019.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and upon a consideration of the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the bail

application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the present fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Amit Kumar

S/o Amar Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 440/2014, Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail provided he

furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only) each

to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do

so.