Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harprasad vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 7 February, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Appl. No. 11637/2010 Harprasad Vs. The State of Raj. Dated : 07.02.2011 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. S.P. Poshwal, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Punia, PP for the State.
Mr. Jitendra Kr. Sharma for the complainant. ***
This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri S.P.Poshwal, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Harprasad pertaining to F.I.R. No. 312/2010 of police station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur, registered for the offences under Section 327, 302, 307 and 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas he is in no way connected with the commission of the alleged offences under Section 327, 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned counsel took me through the contents of the FIR as also the affidavit of injured Dharmendra and contended that the conductor of the Bus named only three persons, out of whom one was Lajji Gurjar Dacoit, another Dashrath Gurjar and third person was not known. The petitioner has been roped in on the basis of the statements given by the driver of the Bus Murari Lal. Murari Lal is found to have named ten persons, but neither any recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner nor identification was conducted by the police to get the petitioner identified from the driver of the bus. The case has been pending trial, which is likely to take time. Hence, on account of there being not even a shred of evidence against the petitioner, he deserves to be granted indulgence of bail.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, has vehemently opposed the bail petition on the ground that he has been made an accused on the basis of the statement of the driver of the bus. It is true that nothing has been recovered from his possession nor any identification parade was got conducted during investigation, but the Investigating Officer of the case who is present in the Court, submits that the driver of the bus knew the petitioner from earlier. It is he who has named the petitioner and had stated that he was present at that time when fir was opened, as a result of which Satendra died on the way while he was being taken to hospital for treatment.
-3-5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the fact that there has been no evidence against the petitioner, do feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner and his bail petition is allowed.
6. It is, therefore, ordered that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Harprasad S/o Shri Patiram @ Patariya is allowed and he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only) together with two sureties each of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the learned trial Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded.
7. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner is found to have been involved in similar type of offence or is arrested in any offence of theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, the bail granted to the petitioner in this case shall stand automatically cancelled without making any reference to this Court.
(MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg item no.9