Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamlesh vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/013351) on 3 May, 2023
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2023/RJJD/013351]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 10845/2022
Kamlesh S/o Shri Bhagwan Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Teliwara, Bedla, Tehsil Badgaun, Police Station Sukher, District
Udaipur (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged In District Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Dhirendra Singh Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Karan Singh Chouhan.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.A.Siddiqui, P.P. cum AAG
Mr.A.R.Malkani, Asstt.to AAG
For Complainant : Mr.Deepak Menaria.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
03/05/2023 This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.87/2021 registered at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for offences under Sections 307/34 and 120B of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
Earlier, two bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioner Kamlesh were rejected by this Court vide orders dated 16.12.2021 (CRLMB 16817/2021) and 23.7.2021 (CRLMB 9402/2021) respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant in the FIR dated 10.2.2021 lodged by him at Police Station Sukher, District Udaipur did not name the present (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:54:25 PM) [2023/RJJD/013351] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10845/2022] petitioner. However, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he falsely implicated present petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of complainant before competent criminal court as P.W.3, learned counsel submitted that owing to certain private disputes between the parties, petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned counsel submitted that looking to the contradictions in the statements of complainant at various stages so also the fact that there is an ongoing dispute between the parties, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that as a matter of fact, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to veracity/contradictions in the statements of the complainant have already been considered by the coordinate Benches of this Court while deciding his first bail application being S.B.Cr.Misc. Bail Application No.9402/2021 "Kamlesh Vs. State of Rajasthan"
decided on 23.7.2021 and S.B.Cr.Misc. II Bail Application No. 16817/2021 "Kamlesh Vs. State of Rajasthan" decided on 16.12.2021. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that while rejecting the second bail application of the petitioner vide order dated 16.12.2021, the coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under:
(Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:54:25 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013351] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10845/2022] "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the statement taken by Police initially the injured does not mention name of the petitioner and subsequently, the injured has mentioned name of the petitioner in his statement made under Section 161 CrPC. Learned counsel further submits that there is already a criminal case pending against the complainant, lodged by the petitioner for offence under Section 307 IPC and other offences of the Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel submits that if the petitioner would have had fired the gun-shot, the complainant would have named him as they are cousin brothers and the complainant knows the petitioner; however, he has improved his statement subsequently.
Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the statement of the complainant has been recorded only subsequently when he was in fit condition and initial statement was recorded by Police, cannot be relied on for giving benefit to the petitioner. There are other eye-witnesses who also mentioned name of the petitioner of having used the fire-arm.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also additionally raised argument with regard to pistol recovered and submits that the same has been only got verified by armourer instead of sending it for forensic examination.
I have considered the submissions and perused the chargesheet papers and the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC.
As regard submissions of the learned counsel relating to testing of the weapon, it would not be appropriate to make any comment at this stage and it is left open for the petitioner to take up the argument during trial.
However, at this stage, taking into consideration the nature of allegations and that the petitioner alleged to have used firearm, which caused gun-shot injury on the complainant, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage.
The bail application is dismissed."
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted that after rejection of the first and second bail application by coordinate Benches of this Court, there is no change in circumstances and thus, the present bail application deserves to be rejected.
(Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:54:25 PM)
[2023/RJJD/013351] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10845/2022] Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that from perusal of the statements of the complainant Naresh Prajapat (P.W.3) recorded before competent criminal court, it is evident that the allegations levelled by him against present petitioner in his statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have been maintained.
In view of the fact that there is no contradiction in the statement of complainant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before competent criminal court coupled with the fact that first and second applications for bail moved by the petitioner have already been dismissed by the coordinate Benches of this Court and there is no apparent change in circumstance after rejection of the first and second bail application, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the instant third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/ Sr.No.37 (Downloaded on 03/05/2023 at 10:54:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)