[2023:RJ-JP:21314]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 6624/2023
Deepak Kumar S/o Babban Prasad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Gaijha, Police Station Phase-II, District Gautam Buddh Nagar,
(Utter Pradesh) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In
District Jail Alwar)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
06/09/2023
The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.501/2022 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Alwar for the offence(s) under Section(s) 457, 395 & 397 of I.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has neither been named in the FIR nor, in the Court statement of the complainant- Shri Subhash Chand Goyal (PW-1). He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2022 and prays for release on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the second bail application.
Heard. Considered.
The first bail application filed by the petitioner after submission of the charge-sheet was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.01.2023 after appreciating the rival contentions raised by the (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:50:03 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:21314] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6624/2023] learned counsels for the respective parties on account of grave allegation of committing dacoity at the residence of the complainant during night armed with deadly weapons and of inflicting injuries on the person of the complainant and his wife, his identification by the complainant during test identification parade, recovery of incriminating material on the information furnished by him under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Thereafter, as many as 13 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is neither named in the FIR nor, in the statement of the complainant (PW-1) is wholly misconceived and does not merit acceptance. As per the prosecution case, the accused-petitioner was wearing mask and was not known to the complainant. A perusal of the statement of the complainant- Shri Subhash Chand Goyal reveals that he has supported the prosecution case. It is trite law that marshalling of evidence is not permissible at the time of consideration of bail application which is to be done by the learned trial Court at the appropriate stage.
In view of gravity of offence, custody for last about 13 months cannot be treated as a ground to extend the petitioner on bail especially, when 13 prosecution witnesses have already been examined out of total 29 prosecution witnesses. In view thereof, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to extend the petitioner benefit of bail.
The second bail application is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/100 (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 07:50:03 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)