Kumar Sain vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuvendra S. Rathore, J.—This is second bail application filed by the accused. The earlier bail application of the accused was dismissed by a co-ordinate bench on 9.12.2013 with the following order:

Taking conduct of the petitioner into consideration, no ground is made out to grant bail to the present petitioner, specially when he has been recently apprehended i.e. On 17.11.2013.

The instant second bail application of the accused was filed on 1.3.2014 and an argument was raised before the co-ordinate bench on 27.3.2014, as under:

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the principal accused Roop Kishore has been granted bail by the coordinate Bench.

List the present petition before the coordinate Bench which has granted bail to the principal accused Roop Kishore.

Thereafter, by the order of Hon''ble the Chief Justice dated 31.03.2014, this second bail application of accused petitioner Kumar Sain is before this court.

It would suffice to say that the learned counsel for the accused had, during the course of arguments, invited attention of this court to the statement of Ninder Singh recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 13.7.2010, in support of his argument that Roop Kishore was the principal accused. The fact is that the prosecution witness Ninder Singh has already been examined by the trial court, in the trial of co-accused persons, as PW-2 on 20.4.2012. A bare reading of the said statement reveals that there was no direct allegation against the accused Roop Kishore. In such circumstances, this court granted bail to accused Roop Kishore on 25.5.2012.

So far as present accused is concerned, his name do figure in the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, such as Tahir, which was filed along with challan, in the case of co-accused persons of which trial had already started. The present accused Kumar Sain was arrested only on 17.11.2013. Challan was filed against him but trial is yet to commence.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner in respect of present accused Kumar Sain is factually contrary to the material on record. More over, to say that Roop Kishore is the principal accused, for the reasons mentioned above, is wholly misconceived. Consequently, this second bail application of the accused petitioner is dismissed as he had been arrested subsequently and the statements of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be recorded during the trial.