Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rupendra Pal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:47219) on 21 November, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:47219]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11589/2024
Rupendra Pal Singh S/o Hukam Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Sanwarad, P.s. Ladnu, Dist. Deedwana, Kuchaman (At Present
Lodged In Jail Salawas, Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 21/11/2024
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 98/2016, Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 326, 307, 399 & 402 of IPC; Sections 7/25 & 7/27 of Arms Act; and Section 3 PDPP Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused persons namely, Aazad Singh, Damodar Singh and Balveer Singh have already been enlarged on bail by the competent Criminal Court and one another co-accused Devendrapal Singh @ Gattu (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1065/2022) has already been enlarged on bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.03.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons who have (Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:48:54 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:47219] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11589/2024] already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of the material prosecution witnesses including Ladhu Singh (PW-4) have already been recorded before the competent Criminal Court, and thus now, there are no chances of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.06.2018 and till date, out of the total 32 cited prosecution witnesses, only 14 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since the last more than 6 years and 5 months and, therefore, looking to the pace at which the trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in near future. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that looking to the seriousness of 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 above named co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar and perused the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 6. The order dated 29.03.2022 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-
(Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:48:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47219] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11589/2024] "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 F.I.R. No. 98/2016, Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 399 alternative with 399/149, 402 alternative with 402/149, 332 alternative with 332/149, 353 alternative with 353/149, 326 alternative with 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7/25 & 7/27 of the Arms Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that only three accused were named in the FIR; that the statement of the complainant - Ladu Singh was recorded as PW-4; that in the aforementioned statement, for the first, the complainant implicated the present accused-petitioner; that the allegation of use of firearm was against the accused Anand Pal Singh; that during the last four lines of the cross-examination, PW-4 (Ladu Singh) stated that, eSa ;g ugha crk ldrk fd mDr cksysjks xkMh esa dkSu dkSu cSBs Fks vkSj xkMh esa fdl LFkku ij cSBs FksA eSa ugha crk ldrk fd cksysjks esa csBs fdl O;fDr us Qk;j fd;k FkkA Learned counsel further stated that the present accused- petitioner is in judicial custody for last four and half years; and that the trial will take time, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the accused- petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently and fervently opposed the bail application of the accused-petitioner and stated that during the statement of Ladu Singh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he has not named the present accused- petitioner but the learned Public Prosecutor does not controvert this fact that the name of the present accused-petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR; that the allegation of use of firearm was levelled against the accused Anand Pal Singh, not against the present accused-petitioner.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the last four lines of the cross-examination of the witness, PW-4 (Ladu Singh) as well as allegation of use of firearm was levelled against the accused Anand Pal Singh; that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since last four and half years; and that the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner, Devendrapal Singh @ Gattu S/o Shiv Singh, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 98/2016, Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so."
(Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:48:54 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:47219] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11589/2024]
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 persons who have already been enlarged on bail; the allegation of use of fire arm was levelled by the injured Ladhu Singh (PW-4) upon co-accused Anand Pal Singh. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 18.06.2018; the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses 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 of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Rupendra Pal Singh S/o Hukam Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with F.I.R. No. 98/2016, Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 35-mohit/-
(Downloaded on 21/11/2024 at 09:48:54 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)