Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:46167) on 14 November, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:46167]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10118/2024
Om Prakash S/o Ladhu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Rohila
East, Police Station Dhorimanna, Dist. Barmer.
(At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail, Balotra)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kishan Lal Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharwan Singh Rathore, Dy.GA.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 14/11/2024
1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.95/2024, registered at Police Station Gudamalani, District Barmer, for offences under Sections 279, 307 and 353 of IPC & Section 3 of PDPP Act.
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7226/2024) was dismissed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.07.2024.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused- Dinesh has already been enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Court.
(Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:06:29 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:46167] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10118/2024]
5. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed; the challan has already been filed before the competent criminal Court; and the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the record of the case reveals that the petitioner is a habitual offender and therefore, looking to the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused- Dinesh has already been enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Court.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused- Dinesh who has already been enlarged on bail by the competent criminal Court; the investigation against the present petitioner has already been completed; the challan has already been filed against the present petitioner; and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. (Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:06:29 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:46167] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10118/2024]
8. Consequently, this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused- petitioner- Om Prakash S/o Ladhu Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.95/2024, registered at Police Station Gudamalani, District Barmer, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, for his appearance before that Court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 16-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 14/11/2024 at 10:06:29 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)