Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kalu Bhaya @ Murad Ali vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 9 February, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
S.B.Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail No. 1969 / 2017
Kalu Bhaya @ Murad Ali Son of Shri Ghasi Khan, by Caste Muslim,
R/o Nanta Barda Basti, Kunhadi, At Present R/o Sweet Home
Colony, House of Pinki, Bapu Colony, Kunhadi, P.S. Kunhadi, Kota.
(At Present Confined in Central Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Shekhawat, P.P. for State. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Judgment 09/02/2017 This fourth bail application has been filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 31.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 2, Kota.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 656/2015 was registered at P.S. Kunhadi, Distt. Kota City for the offences under Sections 147, 457, 436 and 149 IPC against the accused petitioner, which is reproduced as under:-
"lsokesa Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn; Fkkuk dqUgkMh dksVk 'kgj fnukad 27&12&15 fo"k;%&fjiksVZ ntZ djus ckcr~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd eS dj.khuxj cjMk esa e; ifjokj ds fuokl djrh gwW gekjs ,oa iMkSlh txnh'k jsxj ds chp >xMk py jgk gS bl ckr dks ysdj vkt 10 cts ls 10-30 cts dh ckr gS eS vius ?kj ij Fkh fd esjs ?kj esa txnh'k jsxj mldk yMdk pksdysV] eqds'k] 'kadj rFkk muds lkFkh eukst ;kno] dkyw] nhid ;kno] izdk'k ;kno] Hkhe ;kno vk;s ftUgksus esjs xsV ds /kDdk fn;k rFkk ckgj j[ks lkeku rksMQksV dh eS Mj ds ekus Nr ij pyh xbZ rks lHkh ;s yksx esjs ?kj esa ?kql x;sA fQzt] Vh-ch- ¼,y-yh-
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-1969/2017] Mh-½ rFkk ?kj ds lkjs lkeku tyk fn;s rFkk ?kVuk dkfjr dj lHkh Hkkx x;s bu yksxks us esjs fdjk;snkj oS'kkyh oekZ ds dejs ds lkeku rksM fn;s fjiksVZ dkuwuh dk;Zokgh gsrq is'k gSA fnukad 27&12&15 izkfFkZ;k Jhefr jkts'k daoj ifRu Jh Mwaxjflag tkfr jktiwr mez 35 o"kZ fuoklh dj.khuxj ukUrk Fkkuk dqUgkMh dksVk 'kgj eks- ua- 7023222718 v-fu- jkts'k daojÞ"
During the course of investigation, the accused petitioner was arrested. Thereafter he moved the bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2016. Thereafter, he moved the bail application before this court, the same was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.02.2016 with the direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within three months, if possible. Thereafter, he moved the bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2016. Agaisnt that he moved the second bail application before this court which was dismissed in default vide order dated 5.05.2016 with liberty to file a fresh one before this court. He moved the third bail application before this court directly which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.09.2016 with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial as early as possible. The petitioner then filed a bail application before the trial court which was dismissed vide order dated 31.01.2017. Hence this fourth bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime. It has also been contended that the accused petitioner is in judicial lockup from last one year. Learned (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1969/2017] counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this court towards ten cases which were pending against the accused petitioner. Out of which in four case he has been acquitted and the photocopy of the four judgments are placed on record, and same be taken on record. He has further contended that the accused petitioner is an innocent person. The trial court has not concluded the trial as yet even after direction given by this court. Hence, he should be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn attention of this court towards the judgment delivered by the trial court dated 31.01.2017, which is reproduced as under:-
"blds foijhr vfrfjDr yksd vfHk;kstd dk cgl esa ;g dFku jgk gS fd izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vius vU; lkFkh vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj ,d nwljs ds lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa fof/k fo:) teko dk xBu dj ifjokfnuh jkts'k daoj ds edku esa dkjkokl ls n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr djus gsrq jk=kS izPNUu x`g vfrpkj dj mlds Qzht] Vhoh rFkk vU; lkeku dks tykdj fjf"V dkfjr djus ds vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA mudk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls iwoZ esa izLrqr fd;k x;k r`rh; tekur vkosnu fnukad 23-12-2016 dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk] rRi'pkr~ izdj.k esa dsoy ,d xokg ih-McY;w&5 ykywjke ds dFku ys[kc) fd, x, gSa] ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"Vr;k izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx fd;k tkuk mtkxj gksrk gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vkjksfir vijk/k dh xEHkhjrk dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mldk tekur vkosnu [kkfjt fd, tkus dk fuosnu fd;k x;kA mHk;i{k dks lquk] rdksZ ij euu fd;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;kA bl ekeys esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr ds fo:) vius vU; lkFkh vfHk;qDrx.k ds lkFk feydj ,d nwljs ds lkekU; mn~ns'; dh iwfrZ esa fof/k fo:) teko dk xBu dj ifjokfnuh jkts'k daoj ds edku esa dkjkokl ls n.Muh; vijk/k dkfjr djus gsrq jk=kS izPNUu x`g vfrpkj dj mlds Qzht] Vhoh rFkk vU; lkeku dks tykdj fjf"V dkfjr djus ds vijk/k dk vkjksi gSA izdj.k esa ikap vfHk;kstu lk{khx.k ds dFku ys[kc) fd, tk pqdk gSa] ijUrq tekur vkosnu ds fuLrkj.k ds Lrj ij vfHk;kstu (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1969/2017] lk{khx.k U;k;ky; esa nh xbZ lk{; dk foospu fd;k tkuk fof/kdr;k vuqKs; ugha gSA ;gka ;g Li"V fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls izLrqr r`rh; tekur vkosnu fnukad 23-12-2016 dks vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k x;k Fkk] rRi'pkr izdj.k esa dsoyek= ,d lk{kh ih-McY;w&5 ykywjke ds c;ku ys[kc) fd, x, gSa vkSj iqu% izkFkhZ@ vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g prqFkZ tekur vkosnu izLrqr dj fn;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa Li"V :i ls izkFkhZ@ vfHk;qDr }kjk U;kf;d izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx fd;k tkuk mtkxj gksrk gSA ekeyk vHkh lk{; vfHk;kstu ds Lrj ij yfEcr gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa orZeku izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij vf/kd foospu fd;s fcuk leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, mls bl izdj.k esa tekur dh lqfo/kk iznku fd;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% izkFkhZ@vfHk;qDr dkyw Hkk;k mQZ eqjkn vyh }kjk izLrqr ;g prqFkZ tekur izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 439 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk vLohdkj dj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSAÞ On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.
I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned judgment as also the findings quoted above.
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived quoted above by the court below, I don't think it just and proper to accept this bail application. Since the trial is going on, therefore this bail application having no force is hereby dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA)J. Sandeep./Manisha/-545