Rajasthan High Court
Umesh Yadav S/O Shri Harphool ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
