Prem vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This second 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.92/2021, registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302/34 of IPC and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act.

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

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 01.03.2021, in night at about 09:15 pm., petitioner along with the co-accused persons, brutally assaulted the deceased- Shrawan. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with co-accused- Ravi @ Ravindra, had inflicted injuries upon the deceased- Shrawan with a sharp weapon (knife). The deceased succumbed to the injuries so inflicted upon him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that in the FIR, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the deceased- Shrawan with a sharp weapon (knife). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner had only assaulted the deceased with a blunt weapon (lathi). It was contended that the co-accused persons namely Mahendra Bishnoi (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.871/2024) and Malla Ram (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14409/2022) against whom almost similar allegations have been levelled in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 08.02.2024 and 14.03.2024 respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident, only with a view to rope the petitioner in the present case, have made substantial improvements in their statements recorded before the competent criminal court. Though the eye-witnesses have levelled a specific allegation against the petitioner of inflicting injuries with a knife upon the deceased but no sharp weapon (knife) has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. On the contrary, a blunt weapon (lathi) has been recovered on the basis of the information divulged by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody w.e.f. 05.03.2021. The statements of the material witnesses have already been recorded before the competent criminal court. Therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing material prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence in case, he is enlarged on bail. The trial against the petitioner is likely to take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, and having perused the statements of Kailash (PW.1), Chogaram (PW.3), Shankarlal (PW.4), Buddharam (PW.5) and the postmortem report dated 04.03.2021, this Court prima facie finds that the deceased was inflicted three stab wounds with a sharp and pointed object including one injury from a sharp weapon inflicted upon the back of the body of the deceased. The eye-witnesses of the alleged incident in their Court statements have clearly stated that while the co-accused Mallaram was holding the deceased- Shrawan, the present petitioner attacked the deceased with a knife on his back. Thus, the occular testimony furnished by the prosecution in the shape of Court statements of the eye-witnesses is duly supported by the postmortem/medical report produced before the learned trial Court.

It is a settled principle of law that it is always the direct evidence which is material to decide the charges framed against the accused and the facts of the case and the same, therefore, cannot be discarded by the criminal courts lightly. True it is, that no sharp weapon has been recovered at the instance of petitioner but it is pertinent to note here that the blunt weapon recovered at the instance of present petitioner was also containing blood stains. Thus, merely because the sharp weapon allegedly used in commission of the crime has not been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner, the same is not sufficient to conclude that the petitioner was not involved in commission of alleged crime.

In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the evidence available on record clearly suggests, active involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged crime.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present second bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner is rejected.

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