Rajendra Kumar And Others vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

Since all the instant bail applications arise out of common FIR No.220/2020 registered at Police Station Srikaranpur, District Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 447, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, in connection with which the present petitioners have been arrested, therefore, all the instant bail applications have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except-petitioner Radhey Shyam, none of the petitioners were named in the FIR, and that, even after investigation, which was made by the concerned investigating authority for the first time, no role has been attributed to the present petitioners, but the same remained pending for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

2.1. Learned counsel further submitted that after completing further investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the present petitioners, after a lapse of a period of three years from the date of registration of the FIR, and that, even in the charge-sheet, that was submitted, no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioners in commission of the crime in question.

2.2. Learned counsel also submitted that other similarly situated co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court, the trial of the case is likely to take a long time, and thus, apart therefrom, looking into the prolonged custody period of the present petitioners, they are entitled to be released on bail.

On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail applications, and submitted that the charge-sheet which was submitted by the police after further investigation clearly reveals the role of the petitioners, which is sufficient to connect them with the crime in question.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that after due investigation, the police filed the Charge-Sheet/Final Report No.03 dated 04.05.2024 and found the offence under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 447, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act to be made out against the present petitioners.

This Court further finds that the concerned investigating authority, as revealed from the aforementioned charge-sheet, found that the present petitioners were hand in gloves with the other co-accused persons in hatching a conspiracy to commit the crime in question, which is clearly proved from the call details, interrogation note and statements of witnesses, collected and recorded during the course of investigation. Furthermore, the location of the petitioners, as traced during the course of investigation, was the place of the incident.

This Court also finds that a perusal of the charge-sheet reveals the following:

(a) From petitioners-Rajendra Kumar & Mohan Lal, on the basis of the information given by them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the police recovered the lathis, that were used to commit the crime in question.

(b) From petitioners-Nirmal Kumar & Jitendra @ Shekhar, on the basis of the information given by them under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the police recovered the iron rods/pipes, that were used to commit the crime in question.

(c) As regards petitioner-Radhey Shyam, apart from recovery of lathi, on the basis of the information given by him under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, he was clearly named in the aforesaid FIR.

This Court further finds that petitioner-Rajendra is having the criminal antecedent of one case under the provisions of SC/ST Act and the IPC. As regards, petitioner-Mohan Lal, he is also having a criminal antecedent under the provisions of IPC, including Section 307 IPC.

Thus, looking into the heinous nature of the offence in question, criminal antecedents as noticed above and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also looking into the stage of the case against the present petitioners before the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioners at this stage.

Consequently, the present bail applications are dismissed. However, observations, if any, made by this Court in the present order shall not affect the merits of the case during trial before the learned Trial Court.