Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajay Singh Khangarot vs State on 25 April, 2011
Author: Mohammad Rafiq
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No.3100/2011 Ajay Singh Khangarot Vs. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor Date of Order ::: 25.04.2011 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri S.R. Bajwa, Senior Advocate with Shri V.R. Bajwa and Shri Sneh Deep Khyaliya, counsel for petitioner Shri Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, Public Prosecutor Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, counsel for complainant #### By the Court:-
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for complainant and perused material made available to me during course of arguments.
Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that in the complaint filed under Sections 107, 116 and 151 Cr.P.C. only five accused were shown with reference to incident. It is sated therein that incident took place at 9.50 PM, and their arrest was made at 10.15 PM when SHO visited the site. In the FIR however two more accused including the present petitioner were added but no mention of assault on the person of complainant was made in the complaint filed under Sections 107 and 116 of the Cr.P.C. There was no allegation of extortion in the complainant under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. nor has same been alleged by complainant. Even then learned court below has rejected bail application of petitioner being unduly influenced by the news item. The allegation of taking away Rs.3200/- from the restaurant was initially made basis for registering case under Section 379 IPC, but while filing charge-sheet Section 392 IPC was wrongly added. Petitioner was arrested on 22.03.2011 and since then he is in jail. Challan has been filed. There is no other criminal case registered against petitioner. The offence would hardly travel beyond the scope of Section 325 IPC.
Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for complainant, opposing the bail application, submitted that several criminal cases are registered against accused-petitioner and he is habitual offender but police is not furnishing complete details despite complainant making an application under Right to Information Act. This Court on 18.04.2011 called the Investigating Officer with the details and the matter was fixed on 22.04.2011. On that day the Investigating Officer did not appear but another Sub Inspector who appeared in his place was ignorant about the order of the court and therefore the matter was fixed today directing the SHO to appear in person in the court. The has SHO appeared today in the court but he was unable to point out that any other criminal case registered against the petitioner.
After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on its merits and demerits, I deem it just and proper to allow this bail application. It is therefore ordered that accused-petitioner, namely, Ajay Singh Khangarot Son of Shri Surendra Singh Khangarot, Resident of 107, Shiv Vihar Colony, Khatipura, Jaipur (presently lodged in Central Jail, Jaipur) be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in FIR No.69/2011, Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur City (South) under Sections 452, 323, 341, 379 and 143 of the IPC (Sections 325 and 392 IPC added later on), provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
The bail application stands disposed of.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//