Mangi Lal 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.56/2021, registered at Police Station Deshnok, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 302/34 of the IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

As per prosecution, complainant – eye witness namely Om Prakash submitted a written complaint on 13.05.2021 to the SHO P.S. Deshnok, District Bikaner, stating inter alia that while he was going towards his field, he heard voice of his father, who was crying for help. On reaching there, he saw that his father was being attacked by Rameshwar Lal, Jagdish and Mangilal with kulhadis (axe) and lathis. The father of the complainant namely Lalu Ram succumbed to the multiple injuries inflicted by the petitioners, while he was under treatment at PBM Hospital, Bikaner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was not present on the spot. To substantiate this argument, attention of the Court was drawn towards challan papers, where the investigating agency has not found the mobile location of the petitioner to be at the place of incident. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the mobile location of the petitioner was showing of Gajrupdesar and Harkaniyon ka Bas, Deshnok, at the time of incident. Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the statements of Smt. Tulsi, Smt. Imarti, Smt. Kamla recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to submit that these eye witnesses have denied the accusation against the petitioner of causing injuries to the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that neither any specific allegation of inflicting injury has been levelled against the petitioner nor any recovery has been effected at his instance.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that all eye witnesses have named co-accused Rameshwarlal as an assailant and they have not even shown presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence.

On the strength of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant himself is an eye witness of the incident. Attention of the Court was also drawn towards the statements of Pooja and Smt. Santosh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to submit that both these witnesses had seen the present petitioner inflicting injuries upon the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that statements of Smt. Tulsi, Smt. Imarti, Smt. Kamla recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not trustworthy as they are close relatives of the accused-persons.

Attention of the Court was further drawn towards the postmortem report of the deceased and it was submitted that multiple injuries were inflicted upon the deceased and the cause of death of the deceased was coma due to ante mortem head injuries, which is self sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of life. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor jointly submitted that the petitioner had been absconding, therefore, investigation qua him was kept pending and subsequently, concluded under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Lastly, it was submitted that the argument put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to mobile location of the petitioner has no force as the investigating agency itself has concluded that in rural areas, the call details and locations overlap with each other and it would not be sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident or did not participate in the commission of crime.

On the strength of aforementioned arguments, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the present bail application may be rejected straightaway.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, so also statement of eye witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., post mortem report, challan papers etc., without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statements of eye witnesses before competent criminal court.