AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 817 words@JUDGEMENT- JUDGEMENT
Kuldeep Mathur, J
Heard.
This fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who made an assault over the complainant for looting him. The petitioner is presently facing trial for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 323, 393, 394, 397, 398 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
This Court, vide order dated 19.08.2019, dismissed the First Bail Application (No.9586/2019) filed on behalf of the petitioner.
The order dated 19.08.2019 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“Learned counsel for the petitioners, without arguing the matter on merits, has submitted that he does not want to press this criminal misc. bail application, however, seeks liberty for the petitioners to file fresh bail application before the trial court after recording of statements of complainant.
Accordingly, this crimnal misc. bail application preferred by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for.”
The Second Bail Application (No.1284/2020) filed on behalf of the petitioner came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2020. The order dated 04.03.2020 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
“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.108/2019 of Police Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 393, 394, 397, 398, 307 and 34 I.P.C. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that at the time of rejection of first bail application of the petitioners, this Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file fresh bail application before the trial court after recording of statements of complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that now the statements of complainant have been recorded before the trial court. It is submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that allegation against the petitioners of attempting to commit murder of the complainant is absolutely false. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited my attention towards the injury report and submitted that all the injuries on the body of the complainant are simple in nature. It is also submitted that no recovery has been effected at the instance of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the petitioners are in custody since 16th April, 2019 and the trial of the case will take time, they may be enlarged on bail.
Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that in test identification and at the time of recording of statements before the court, the complainant identified the accused-petitioners. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the complainant is an Army Officer and when he was returning in the night of 14.4.2019 on his motorcycle, the petitioners forcibly stopped him and tried to snatch his personal belongings and when he resisted, they inflicted grievous injuries with deadly weapons on him. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are 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 statements of complainant Ravi Tripathi (PW-1) wherein he has specifically identified the accused petitioners in court and also stated that they inflicted grievous injuries on him with deadly weapon with intention to kill him, 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.”
The Third Bail Application (No.15806/2021) filed on behalf of the petitioner was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 which is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
“Learned counsel for the petitioner, without arguing the matter on merits, has submitted that he does not want to press these criminal misc. bail applications at this stage.
Accordingly, these criminal misc. bail applications preferred by the petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are dismissed as not pressed at this stage.”
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusal of the material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are very serious. The petitioner, with a pre-meditated mind, committed the alleged crime alongwith co-accused Vishnu Kumar whose bail applications were also dismissed along with the petitioner. This Court also prima facie does not find any change in the circumstances warranting consideration of the present bail application. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offence and looking to the gravity of the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
In the result, the instant fourth application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.