Laxman vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.127/2022, registered at Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 & 34 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that in the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant – Jagdish on 08.06.2022, he stated that on 07.06.2022 at around 08:00 - 09:00 P.M., he had gone to a hotel for having dinner with the present petitioner – Laxman, co-accused - Rakesh Banjara, Dasrath, Madan, Kailash and Nanalal etc. After having dinner, all of them left for Timbuadiya. En-route, Dasrath, the present petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Banjara started fighting with each other. When the complainant intervened and tried to stop them, co-accused Rakesh Banjara stabbed him with a knife. Learned counsel submitted that in the F.I.R. it was also alleged that Dasrath Banjara succumbed to the injury while undergoing treatment in a hospital.

Learned counsel submitted that from the perusal of the F.I.R., it is evident that specific allegation of inflciting injury with a sharp weapon (knife) has been levelled against co-accused Rakesh Banjara. It was urged that the F.I.R. is indicative of the fact that it is a case of free fight which happened in the spur of the moment. It was submitted that the petitioner neither had any intention nor any motive. Learned counsel drew attention of the Court towards postmortem report of the deceased Dasrath Banjara wherein the cause of death has been mentioned as ante-mortem stab injury in the chest. Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the injury report of the complainant – Jagdish as per which he had sustained one incised wound over abdomen, which is grievous in nature and dangerous to life.

Learned counsel submitted that statements of the injured have been recorded before the competent criminal court on 06.02.2022 as P.W.-1. It was urged that during the court statements, an exaggerated version of the incident has been narrated by the complainant which does not match with the contents of the F.I.R., postmortem report of deceased- Dasrath Banjara and injury report of the complainant. In the court statement, the complainant has stated that the present petitioner inflicted injury with knife on the right side of his abdomen whereas co-accused Rakesh Banjara had inflicted injury on the left side of his abdomen. In the court statement, though the complainant has stated that present petitioner and co-accused Laxman had inflicted injuries upon deceased- Dasrath with knife but neither in the F.I.R. any specific allegation of stabbing the deceased has been levelled against petitioner nor multiple stab injuries have been found on the body of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of another material witnesses of the case namely Nanalal and Kailash have been recorded before competent criminal court as P.W.-8 and P.W.-9 respectively who have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile.

Learned counsel further submitted that only one knife has been recovered by the investigating agency which fortifies the fact that only one weapon was used in the commission of alleged crime and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

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

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, challan papers, postmortem report, injury report, recoveries made at the instance of accused persons and the statements of the complainant (P.W.1), this Court prima facie finds that initially specific allegation of inflicting injuries with sharp edged weapon (knife) upon the complainant and the deceased were levelled against co-accused Rakesh Banjara. This Court also prima facie finds that only one sharp edged weapon (knife) has been recovered at the joint instance of accused persons. This Court also prima facie finds that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the complainant (PW1-) has narrated an exaggerated version of the incident only with a view to rope the present petitioner in a criminal case cannot be brushed aside at this stage, particularly in view of the fact that the complainant (PW-1) has levelled allegation of inflciting injuries upon him against the present petitioner and co-accused Rakesh Banjara while the injury report of the complainant suggests otherwise and indiciates that he had sustained only one stab injury over his abdomen. Similarly, deceased Dasrath Banjara had also sustained one stab injury in his chest. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 08.06.2022 and in view of the fact that statements of eye witness – complainant and other material witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court, there are no chances of the petitioner influencing the witnesses relevant for present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Laxman S/o Suraj Mal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.127/2022, registered at Police Station Chanderiya, District Chittorgarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.