Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satya Narain @ Sattu vs State Of Rajasthan-State on 8 March, 2022
Author: Devendra Kachhawaha
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
(1 of 3) [CRLMB-14137/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14137/2021
Satya Narain @ Sattu S/o Shri Meghraj, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Sabalpura, Kareda Police Station, District Bhilwara.
(Lodged in District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naman Mohnot
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arun Kumar, PP
Mr. R.S. Chundawat, for the
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Order 08/03/2022 The present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial custody in connection with the F.I.R. No.11/2021 of Kareda Police Station, District Bhilwara registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 365, 342, 323, 302, 201/34, 120-B of IPC.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not named in the FIR; petitioner was not present at the spot; no mobile is recovered from the petitioner; no mobile was purchased by the petitioner; mobiles were purchased by the co- accused Prakash who has already been granted benefit of bail. (Downloaded on 08/03/2022 at 08:46:35 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-14137/2021] Learned counsel further stated that even name of recovery of mobile phone i.e. samsung company available at page nos. 93-94 and as per video recording of dying declaration of the deceased Jagdish S/o Meghraj; specific allegations were made against Ishwar and Devilal; even, during the statements of Anchi (wife of deceased Jagdish), Rameshwar Lal, Vishnu and Sohanlal, petitioner was not named in their statements; there is no specific allegation against the petitioner; petitioner is behind the bars since long and that further trial will take time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application and stated that as per the earlier evidence available on record and the statements of Narayan Lal, Laxman and Bheru Lal recently recorded by the investigating officer, there is allegation of offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC against the accused petitioner. It is also stated that 7 mobiles were purchased by the Prakash for accused-petitioner; as per the statement of Anchi recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., there is rivalry between the accused petitioner and the deceased and there is direct evidence of motive against the accused petitioner for commission of murder of deceased Jagdish; petitioner is main conspirator; in compliance of conspiracy, 7 mobiles were purchased through Prakash; as per page nos. 194 and 195 etc., there is call detail report of all the co-accused, collected during the investigation along with the certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and mobiles numbers; as per para no. 8 of page no.17 of the charge-sheet shows that there is conspiracy of the (Downloaded on 08/03/2022 at 08:46:35 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14137/2021] co-accused and the petitioner and as per para no.10, in pursuance of conspiracy, different works were assigned by the petitioner to all the other co-accused for commission of offence; as per the statement of Narayan Lal, Bheru Lal and Laxman Lal, total 7 mobiles were provided to them by the accused-petitioner through co-accused Prakash.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the evidence available on record and the arguments raised by learned Public Prosecutor as well learned counsel for the complainant, accused petitioner is the main conspirator whereas, allegation, against the accused petitioner and co-accused Prakash who has already been granted benefit of bail, are not identical; accused petitioner is the main conspirator, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court does not find it to be a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C..
Accordingly, the present bail application preferred by the petitioner - Satya Narain @ Sattu S/o Shri Meghraj, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 7-Arvind/-
(Downloaded on 08/03/2022 at 08:46:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)