HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14990/2022 Daya Ram S/o Shri Pratap Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Nethrana Tehsil Bhadra Dist. Hanumangarh (At Present Confined At Dist. Jail Churu)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma Rohit Duria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukhtiyar Khan, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 05/01/2023 The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 65/2019 of Police Station Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 302 IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The first bail application was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court as not pressed vide order dated 17.02.2022..
Counsel for the petitioner submits that now material witnesses have been examined before the trial court and they have given stereotype statements. Further according to the FSL report, the portion of viscera gave positive tests for the presence of Organophosphorous Insecticide. Thus, it is argued that the deceased committed suicide and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that so far only 23 witnesses out of 39 witnesses have been examined and trial is (Downloaded on 07/01/2023 at 11:17:45 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14990/2022] likely to take long time, therefore, petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parvat Singh Vs. State of M.P ( Criminal Appeal No. 374/2020) dated 02.03.2020 and judgments passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. state of Raj. reported in 2010(2) Cri.L.R. (Raj. ) 1679 and Kumari Chandra @ Sati Lajnani Vs. State of Raj reported in 2018 (3) RLW 2382.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record.
In this case, so far 23 material witnesses have been examined before the trial court. PW/1 Arzoo who is the daughter of petitioner has specifically stated that the present petitioner as well as co-accused Sushil Kumar first gave beating to her mother and thereafter, poured spray (insecticide) into the mouth of deceased. She has further stated that all the siblings were locked by the accused persons in a room. Likewise, PW/3 Rahul who is the son of present petitioner and deceased has also specifically stated that present petitioner as well as co-accused Sushil Kumar gave beating to his mother and poured insecticide into the mouth of his mother. PW/6 Sanjay, is the brother of deceased who lodged the FIRhas also stated that Daya ram, Dhanna ram, Sushil and Atma Ram have killed his sister. He also produced the recording of conversation between her sister and her husband. PW/7 Mange Ram who is also brother of the deceased corroborates the story of (Downloaded on 07/01/2023 at 11:17:45 PM) (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14990/2022] prosecution. Similarly, PW/8 Kumari Mukta who is the sister of deceased has stated that the children informed her that both the accused persons caught hold of their mother and the present petitioner forcibly poured spray (insecticide) into the mouth of deceased. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said at this stage that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not involved in the offence.
So far as the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner are concerned, it is submitted that in the said cases, the Hon'ble Court had acquitted the accused persons holding that the accused persons cannot be convicted for serious offence of murder solely on the testimony of child witnesses. However, in the present case, apart from the child witnesses, there are other witnesses who have corroborated the story of prosecution without any material contradictions. Therefore, the cases relied upon by counsel for the petitioner does not help the petitioner in any manner. Thus, the present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused petitioner. Moreover, the bail application of co-accused Sushil Kumar has also been dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and case of the petitioner is not distinguishable.
No case for bail is made out for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby rejected.
(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 144-BJSH/-
(Downloaded on 07/01/2023 at 11:17:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)