Ramswaroop vs State

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in FIR No.110/2019 of Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 353, 427/34 I.P.C and Sections 3/25 and 27 of Arms Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that allegation of firing gunshot on police party levelled against the petitioner is absolutely false. It is argued that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also submitted that such incident, as alleged in the FIR; charge-sheet as also mentioned in the statement of PW-1 Chandrabhan, never occurred. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner had not fired gunshot targeting any police officer, though as per the prosecution, he had all the opportunities to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that as a mater of fact, Chandrabhan (PW-1) has not even identified the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further invited my attention towards the evidence of Chandrabhan (PW-1) and argued that from his evidence, it is clear that the police have falsely implicated the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since July 2019 and till date, only one witness has been examined, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Per contra, learned Public prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that Chandrabhan (PW-1), in his statements, has specifically stated that he had identified the petitioner, who had fired gunshot targeting the police party. Learned Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the petitioner is having criminal record and when the police tried to apprehend him, he fired gunshot on the police and ran away from the scene of crime. Learned Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the petitioner had attempted to kill the police officers and looking to nature of accusation and gravity of offence, he is not entitled to be enlarged on bail.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and having gone through the charge-sheet as well as the statements of Chandrabhan (PW-1), wherein he has specifically stated that the petitioner had fired gunshot on the police party and looking to the nature of accusation and gravity of the offence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.