Rakesh Manju vs State Of Rajasthan

The present fourth bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.158/2017, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur for the offence under Sections 307 & 120- B of IPC and under Sections 3/25 & 3/27 of Arms Act.

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

After the rejection of the second bail application of the petitioner on 21.01.2020, the third bail application was filed directly before this Court, therefore, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the trial court. The petitioner has approached the trial court by filing the bail application and the same was rejected. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present fourth bail application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the rejection of the second bail application, co-accused Kailash Manju has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.02.2020. He further submits that case of the present petitioner is on the same footing as the case of the co- accused Kailash Manju. He further submits that as per the Parcha Bayan of the injured Dinesh Bhambhani, five persons have been named and with those five persons, the name of the petitioner does not appear. He further submits that Girish Bhambhani being the real brother of injured Dinesh Bhambhani, too has not named anybody in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After two days of the incident, the statement of Dinesh Bhambhani reiterates those five names including the name of the present petitioner. The statements were recorded in presence of Girish Bhambhani. He further submits that Dinesh Bhambhani has been examined before the trial court as P.W.1. He submits that as per the statements of Dinesh Bhambhani recorded before the trial court, the petitioner has not been named nor he was identified. As per the statements of Dinesh Bhambhani, his brother Girish Bhambhani, who appeared before the trial court as P.W.2 has named the petitioner as one of the assailants as he has identified the petitioner at the time of identification parade. Learned counsel further submits that the testimony of P.W.2 is not worth credence and is required to be disbelieved in the first instance in view of the consistent statement of his injured brother Dinesh Bhambhani. He further submits that petitioner was not present at the time of incident and because of rivalry between the petitioner and the complainants, his name has been falsely impleaded. He further submits that the allegations levelled in the present case are almost on the same footing as in the case of Kailash Manju. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that petitioner has been named in the statement of Girish Bhambhani as he has identified the present petitioner at the time of identification parade. Learned Public Prosecutor supported by Mr. Manish Tak for the complainant further submits that there are number of cases pending against the present petitioner and during the pendency of this case also, the petitioner has threatened the complainants for which separate proceedings have been undertaken in which the petitioner has been enlarged on bail.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and prima facie, I am of the view that since the petitioner was not named in the statement of the injured Dinesh Bhambhani and thereafter, second time also when the statements are recorded in the presence of his brother Girish Bhambhani, the petitioner was not named and only those five persons whose names were taken earlier were reiterated.

Taking into consideration the statements of P.W.1 Dinesh Bhambhani and P.W. 2 Girish Bhambhani, I am of the view that involvement of the petitioner is not beyond doubt. Thus, the case of the present petitioner is on the same footing as the case of co- accused Kailash Manju who has been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court.

Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussion made earlier as also the present situation of the country due to pandemic of corona virus (COVID-19), in particular the jails, this Court deems it just and proper to release the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the present fourth bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner -Rakesh Manju S/o Shri Roopa Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.158/2017, Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: Fifty Thousand Only) with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees : Twenty Five Thousand Only)each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.