Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Omprakash vs C.B.I on 30 January, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B.Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 1818 / 2015
Om Prakash S/o Shri Mohan Ram, By caste Vishnoi, R/o Sunda
Nagar, Village Jalora, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Crime-I, New Delhi having
its camp office at Jodhpur.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.K. Bohra, Mr. Kailash Khileree
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Panney Singh, Special P.P.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Date of Order :: 30th January, 2017 This is the second bail application. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.RC7(S)/2011/SC1/CBI, Delhi for the offence under Section 120-B R/W 364, 302 & 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The matter relates to the abduction and subsequent killing of a lady Bhanwari Devi wherein three charge-sheets were filed by the C.B.I. in quick succession to each other. A missing report was lodged by her husband Amar Chand before the Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur. Subsequently, Amar Chand registered another FIR alleging the involvement of one of the sitting MLA and a Cabinet (2 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] Minister in abduction of his wife and it was also apprehended that she had been killed. The Investigation was handed over to the C.B.I. by the State Government. The story as disclosed by the C.B.I. was that Bhanwari Devi was abducted and killed by the accused-persons for monetary considerations. One other accused person, namely, Mahipal Maderna was also arrested on the same date. The allegations against Mahipal Maderna were confined to a sleaze CD having explicit sex contents with the deceased and it was stated that she was murdered because of the blackmailing being done by her and by extending threats for exposing the said accused.
On 4.10.2012, the trial court discharged co-accused Paras Ram from the charges under Sections 120-B, 364, 302 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and was ordered to be charged only under Section 202 of the IPC. Similarly, accused-Om Prakash, petitioner was discharged by the trial court from the charges under Sections 120-B, 364, 302 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and was ordered to be charged only under Section 201 of the IPC while other accused persons, namely, (1) Sohan Lal, (2) Sahi Ram, (3) Mahipal, (4) Malkhan Singh, (5) Kumbha Ram (6) Umesha Ram, (7) Reshma Ram, (8) Pukhraj, (9) Dinesh, (10) Bishna Ram, (11) Kailash, (12) Ashok and (13) Shahabuddin have been ordered to be charged under (3 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] Sections 302/120-B, 364/120-B, 201 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act and the accused Amar Chand, who himself was a Scheduled Caste, was ordered to be charged only under Section 120-B and 364/120-B of the IPC by the trial court. The C.B.I. preferred Revision Petition No.1022/2012 before this Court against the said order of discharge. The said revision petition was disposed of by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide its order dated 30.1.2014 as under:-
"Confessional statements of accused Sahi Ram, Vishna Ram, Kailash and statements of other witnesses Shyam Lal, Deva Ram, Lakha Ram have also been ignored by the trial court. If we go through these statements, charge of abduction and murder and criminal conspiracy should have been framed against Om Prakash and Paras Ram also. If a lady was abducted by some of the accused-persons and she was then murdered by some of the accused-persons and then her body was unscrupulously disposed of by some of the accused persons, then all these accused persons should have been charged for conspiracy, abduction and murder of the lady and causing disappearance of evidence and at the stage of charge, benefit of doubt could not have been and should not have been given to any of the accused-persons including Om Prakash and Paras Ram. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1022/2012 stands disposed of accordingly."
Thereafter the accused challenged the order dated 30.1.2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of SLP (Criminal) No.1826/2014, which was dismissed on 25.2.2014. On 6.3.2014, accused-petitioner Om Prakash surrendered (4 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] before the trial court. The charges under Section 120-B read with Section 364, 302 and 201 of the IPC were framed against him and he was remanded to judicial custody. Similarly, when accused-petitioner Paras Ram surrendered before the trial court on 6.5.2014, the trial court once again framed charges under Section 120-B read with Sections 364, 302 & 201 of the IPC and sent him to judicial custody.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Criminal misc. Bail application No.5083/2014 under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. This Court dismissed the bail application by a detailed common order dated 13.01.2015 passed in the case of the petitioner as well as co-accused Paras Ram.
Co-accused Paras Ram filed another bail application No.4872/2016 before this Court which was too dismissed vide order dated 5.9.2016. Paras Ram filed Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1696/2015 before the Apex Court. The SLP was dismissed with the following observations:
"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material.
The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail before the High Court after three months in the event the trial of the accused does not progress in the manner as directed by the High Court."
Now, the present petitioner Om Prakash has moved the second bail application. The bail application of the petitioner too requires to be dismissed although, learned counsel for the (5 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] petitioner while praying for bail submitted that all the relevant witnesses qua the charges framed against the present petitioner have been examined but no witness has mentioned anything against the petitioner and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in keeping him in jail.
Mr. Panney Singh, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI has pointed out that in order to eliminate Bhanwari Devi and to dispose of her dead body, accused Sahiram Bishnoi engaged gang of Bishnaram Bishnoi of which accused Om Prakash Bishnoi was a member. As per evidence, accused Sahiram Bishnoi by using his mobile No.9828286224 contacted accused Bishnaram Bishnoi (real brother of present petitioner) on 31.08.2011 through mobile No.8094293992 of accused Om Prakash Bishnoi, present petitioner. On the same day, accused Sahiram Bishnoi held a meeting with accused Bishnaram Bishnoi, accused Umesharam in presence of accused Om Prakash Bishnoi, present petitioner near his native village where modalities regarding abduction and murder of Bhanwari Devi were finalized. On the date of incident i.e. 01.09.2011, accused Sahiram and Om Prakash were in contact with each through their mobiles during the period of occurrence of the incident. Accused Bishnaram Bishnoi knowingly left his real brother accused Om Prakash Bishnoi at his village to manage the events of incident. Further, when accused Sahiram Bishnoi (6 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] was unable to contact accused Bishnaram Bishnoi on 1.9.2011 then he contacted accused Om Prakash Bishnoi to convey the instructions to accused Bishnaram Bishnoi. In this way, accused Om Prakash Bishnoi, the present petitioner played a very important and pivotal role in communications between accused Sahiram Bishnoi and Bishnaram Bishnoi. There is oral evidence of Sh. Narendra Kumar (PW-154) Sh. Dharma Ram (PW-184) and Sh. Bhanwar Das (PW-221) as well as documentary evidence i.e. D-132, D-133, D-139, D- 140, D-141, D-142, D-158, D-159, D-161, D-162, D-163, D- 164, D-165, D-166, D-167, D-168, D-172, D-178, D-181, D- 110 & D-315 showing deep rooted involvement of accused Om Prakash Bishnoi in the crime. Besides, the accused Om Prakash Bishnoi, present petitioner was also involved in destruction of evidence by way of disposal of the skeletal remains of Bhanwari Devi as she was burnt in a ditch near village Jalora and thereafter her ashes were thrown in the adjoining Rajiv Gandhi Lift Canal. Accordingly, the active involvement of the petitioner in the offence is made out.
According to the learned counsel appearing for the CBI, out of 154 witnesses, 34 witnesses have turned hostile due to fear of accused persons and the petitioner has as many as more than 30 criminal cases registered against him by the Police and therefore, it may not be in the larger interest to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. Besides, the bail (7 of 7) [CRLMB-1818/2015] application of co-accused Dinesh Bishnoi and Ashok Bishnoi have also been dismissed. In any case, it is not necessary to weigh the evidence at this stage when a prima facie case is evident on the basis of material available on record.
Moreover, nothing has been pointed out to say that the trial Court is not recording the evidence in the manner as per the directions issued by the High Court in the case of co- accused.
No ground is made out to release the petitioner on bail. Thus, the second bail application too is dismissed.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)J. praveen