Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shakti Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 November, 2020
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
(1 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Third Bail Application No. 15460/2019
Shakti Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, By
Caste Rajput, R/o Rajputo Ki Bassi, Merta Road, District Nagaur.
(Lodged At Sub Jail, Parbatsar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhirendra Singh assisted by
Mr. Jagdish Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 04/11/2020 In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
This Court perused the material available on record. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.137/2015 of Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 328, 307, 395, 397, 332, 353, 224, 225, 120-B IPC, Section 3 of PDPP Act and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner is a Police Commando, who is alleged to have enabled the escape of dreaded criminals on 03.09.2015 between Devali to (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM) (2 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] Gangwa Bus Stand, while coming back from the court, where they went in relation to the court date. The police van, apart from the criminals, was carrying personnel of police force including Sunil Kumar Dangi, who is PW-1 in the present case, PW-2 Sanwarmal, PW-3 Mukesh Kumar, PW-4 Anil Pandey, PW-5 Naresh Kumar, PW- 6 Gopal Lal Sharma and PW-7 Jagdish Sharma.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that earlier the petitioner was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.07.2016 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6256/2016, but the same bail application was cancelled by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 18.08.2017 passed in Criminal Appeal No(s).1433 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7998 of 2016). The observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said order reads as follows:
"As a matter of fact total conduct of Shakti Singh is clouded one. He had not consumed sweets and how his gun could be snatched away is shrouded in mystery. Prosecution alleged it was handed over to Anand Pal Singh. Be that as it may. There appears to be an active role of Shakti Singh in escape of the accused. Presently, without commenting on the merits of the case, we find order of the High Court ignores the allegations against accused. It is a serious case in which bail should not have been granted.
We set aside the impugned order and direct the police to arrest the respondent Shakti Singh forthwith.
The appeal is allowed."
Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the change in circumstance thereafter, is that other co-accused persons involved in the alleged incident have been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court, who are Mahipal Singh @ Monti Singh Vs. State (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM) (3 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5035/2018 on 05.07.2018, Surajkaran @ Suraj @ Surja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2635/2018 on 22.03.2018. He further submits that the change in circumstance leading to filing of the present bail application is the statement of PW-1 to PW-7, and the said seven witnesses, who were part of the police team and other relevant witnesses, their statements have been recorded in the year 2019. He also submits that there are 103 witnesses in the case and the trial is likely to take long time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that despite the order passed by this Court in Shakti Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2138/2019) on 09.09.2019, the expeditious hearing in the trial could not take place. He also points out that looking to COVID times and the number of witnesses pending to be examined, the trial is likely to take a very long time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-4, who was the then Station House Officer at Police Station Parbatsar. The said witness deposed that when he reached the spot, he found Bus driver Shambhoo Singh and the present accused-petitioner Shakti Singh hit by the bullet and lying in the pool of blood and the other persons, namely, Phoolchand, Rajendra Singh, Hardev Rajendra, Sunil and Jagdish were there in the Bus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has thereafter, drawn attention of this Court towards the evidence rendered by PW-1 Sunil Kumar Dangi, who has deposed that there was a scuffle between present accused and dreaded criminals, and the firing (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM) (4 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] also simultaneously started. This witness has also deposed that he cocked his AK-47 rifle, but since there were other constables in the front seat, therefore, he could not take aim and fire. PW-1 has further deposed that the accused-petitioner sustained a bullet injury, and the criminals had managed to escape.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the same kind of submissions for the other co-accused persons as well. He submits that the gunshot injury on the body of the present accused persons could not have been possible, if there was an iota of truth in the version of the prosecution that the present petitioner enabled the escape of the dreaded criminals.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown from the record, and also while taking help of the statements of PW-13 and PW-17, that the allegation of any mobile contact etc. between the petitioner and the criminals could not stand on its feet. He also submits that there is no examination of any kind of substance, which could have caused the loosing of consciousness of the other police personnel at the instance of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 23.08.2017.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner was a police personnel and was required to behave appropriately in such a situation and should have handled his weapon carefully, as his duty, being in the escort party of the dreaded criminals itself, required high level of alertness.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that there is a consistency in the statements of police personnel that there were (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM) (5 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] some sweets, which were distributed by the present petitioner, that has caused unconsciousness to some of the members of the police team.
Learned Public Prosecutor was asked a categorical question by this Court as to whether there was any evidence regarding the weapon of the present accused petitioner being handed over by himself to the criminals voluntarily. A query was also put to the learned Public Prosecutor as to whether there was any examination of the sweets or eating material, that was available in the van. Learned Public Prosecutor was also asked by this Court as to whether there was any evidence including call details etc., which could connect the accused-petitioner with any of the dreaded criminals.
Learned Public Prosecutor however, could not show any evidence, which could point out that the present petitioner handed over his weapon to the criminals voluntarily. Learned Public Prosecutor also could not establish from the record any mobile connection or electronic evidence, which could connect the present petitioner with the dreaded criminals on date or in past.
Learned Public Prosecutor however, submits that the deposition of PW-1 and other witnesses is consistent to the effect that there was some material mixed in the sweets concerned, and the same was attributed to the present petitioner, which made some persons in the police team unconscious. He also submits that already statement of 20 witnesses have been recorded and other witnesses shall be expeditiously examined, and all efforts shall be made to record the statements of rest of the witnesses. (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM)
(6 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the crucial witnesses are the police witnesses, particularly, from PW-1 to PW-7, and they have already deposed before the learned trial court, after the order was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, and thus, the outline of the prosecution case is there before this Court and also there is a material change in the circumstances.
PW-1 has categorically deposed that the accused-petitioner was in scuffle with the criminals and he also deposed that while the firing was on from the opposite side, the present petitioner received a bullet injury. The prosecution witness has also submitted that he had cocked his AK-47 rifle but did not fire because there were other constables in the front and he could not taken aim properly. He also deposed that after the firing stopped, he came down from the van and saw that the petitioner's leg received a bullet injury, and thereafter, he informed the police team about the whole episode.
The deposition in regard to any contact between the present petitioner and the dreaded criminals is nowhere available on record, even as the crucial witnesses have already deposed. The story of disabling of all the persons due to sweets itself gets vitiated on count of the statement of PW-1 Sunil Kumar Dangi that he was conscious all the time and he also tried to use his AK-47 rifle upon the assailants but could not fire because he could not take proper aim, as there were other constables, who were in the front seats of the van.
(Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM)
(7 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] The circumstantial change due to the depositions before the learned trial court made by the police witnesses, who were there in the van, is a substantial development and such depositions do not indicate any direct relationship between the present petitioner as well as the dreaded criminals. The fact of the weapon being voluntarily given has not come anywhere in the evidence. In fact, on the contrary, this Court takes note of the fact that the bullet injury was there in the leg of the present petitioner and the same has been consistently attributed by his colleagues to the frontal fire received from outside the van. The prosecution theory of sweets is not supported by any expert examination.
In the present circumstances, when the total number of witnesses are 103 and only 20 witnesses have been examined, there is a likelihood that the trial, despite this Court's order of expeditious trial, is likely to take long time, due to Covid times.
Looking into the fact that the petitioner, on attaining bail from this Court earlier, was released by the respondents, and then he voluntarily surrendered after the cancellation of his bail by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the fact of his being a member of the disciplined police force and his past conduct, there is no likelihood of his remaining absconding, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Shakti Singh S/o Shri Manohar Singh shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.137/2015 of Police Station Parbatsar, District Nagaur provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM)
(8 of 8) [CRLMB-15460/2019] with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 3-Zeeshan/-
(Downloaded on 09/11/2020 at 08:38:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)