HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fourth Bail Application No.
5263/2021
Umesh Yadav S/o Shri Harphool Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Santadiya Ps Singhana Tehsil Buhana Dist. Jhunjhunu (At
Present Confined In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman For Complainant(s) : Mr. Shivraj Chauhan Mr. Hemant Sharma, through VC Mr. Raj Kumar Lalwani For State Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI Judgment / Order 16/08/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this fourth bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.110/2019 was registered at Police Station Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 450, 302, 458 & 459 of IPC and Sections 3/25 Arms Act.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has remained in custody for a period of more than two years. Statement of only one witness has been been recorded so far. It is also contended that the pistol was recovered from the co-accused- Shyam Sunder and as per the armour report, the said firearm was used and the bullets that were recovered are a match with the firearm that was recovered from co-accused-Shyam Sunder. It is further contended that the deceased has received a single gunshot injury and the petitioner is not responsible for the gunshot injury. (Downloaded on 18/08/2021 at 09:50:32 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRLMB-5263/2021] It is also contended the only evidence against the petitioner was that he was seen running away from the place of incident. It is further contended that out of criminal antecedents pointed out, petitioner stands acquitted in 15-16 cases.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsels for the complainant have opposed the fourth bail application. It is contended that there is specific allegation against the present petitioner of entering the premises armed with a firearm. It is also contended that the petitioner is charged of Section 302 read with Section 120-B & 149 IPC. Petitioner is not the resident of that area and from the mobile call location his presence is shown near the place of occurrence.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Witnesses have shown the presence of the present petitioner at the place of occurrence. He was armed with the firearm. He has criminal antecedents and has been charged with the aid of Section 120-B & 149 IPC.
7. Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the State and counsels for the complainant, I am not inclined to entertain the fourth bail application.
8. This fourth bail application is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Trial Court is directed to expedite the recording of the statement of the principal witnesses.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /10 (Downloaded on 18/08/2021 at 09:50:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)