Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Satyendra @ Sattu Supari vs State Of Rajasthan Through Pp on 15 February, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2247/2017
Satyendra @ Sattu Supari Son of Lalaram, By Caste Yadav,
Resident of Baval, Thana Kanina, Hariyana
(At present confined in Sub Jail Nim Ka Thana)
...Accused-Petitioner.
Versus
State of Rajasthan through P.P.
.....Non-Petitioner.
DATE OF ORDER ::: 15th February, 2017
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Mr. Vidhut Gupta for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rajendra Raghav, PP.
The present Misc bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is preferred by the Accused/ petitioner Satyendra @ Sattu Pujari in the matter of FIR No. 371/2016 registered at Police Station Sadar Nim Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 395, 120-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Vidhut Gupta submits that Kailash Yadav, Santosh Yadav and Rajendra Sharma have already been released on Bail by this Court and the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable than that of co-accused. He submits that complainant himself was having possession of new Rs. 2 2000 notes amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/- during demonatization period. He submits that as per prosecution co-accused Santosh called the other accused who have already been released on Bail. Petitioner is in custody since 18/12/2016, therefore, he may be released on Bail.
Per contra learned PP. Shri Rajendra Raghav submits that no recovery was affected from co-accused and they were known to complainant. Still their name has not been mentioned in the FIR. Their name was introduced in police statement after FIR. Considering this fact this Court allowed their bail application. He submits that on disclosure statement of petitioner accused a Bolaro vehicle with its key was recovered from petitioner accused Satyendra @ Sattu Supari which was used during commission of offence. Petitioner accused was subjected to test identification parade and victim identified him correctly. While the person who have been enlarged on Bail, have not been subjected to test identification parade. He submits that there are serious allegations against the present petitioner regarding committing decoity after using fire arms. There is recovery from the petitioner which connects him with alleged offence. Matter is still under investigation. Therefore, bail application may be dismissed.
3
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the material made available for my perusal as well as the evidence collected during investigation, I prima facie found that there is sufficient evidence available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in the present case, therefore, looking to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of the offence and without expressing any final opinion on the merit and de-merit of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the accused-petitioner.
Consequently, the bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
[BANWARI LAL SHARMA], J.
Komal/111.